Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
Nice review, definitely a straight ten. Looking forward to your thoughts on 4.
Nice review, definitely a straight ten. Looking forward to your thoughts on 4.
The Wing Kong Exchange (feat. Inferno)
- Thread starter Fuji Vice
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 20,922
- Reaction score
- 3,814
- Points
- 138
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Dancing
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
Die Hard is a great movie and such a great first movie in a franchise that looks like it has another one coming up. I agree with the 10 on this one.
Die Hard is a great movie and such a great first movie in a franchise that looks like it has another one coming up. I agree with the 10 on this one.
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
you haven't done Die Hard until now? No surprise it was a perfect 10, GREAT movie! I've been wanting to see Cocoon for quite some time, you made it sound like a actually very interesting, and kinda deep movie, I'll get on it. Guttenburg is the man anyways!
you haven't done Die Hard until now? No surprise it was a perfect 10, GREAT movie! I've been wanting to see Cocoon for quite some time, you made it sound like a actually very interesting, and kinda deep movie, I'll get on it. Guttenburg is the man anyways!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 20,922
- Reaction score
- 3,814
- Points
- 138
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Dancing
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 25,302
- Reaction score
- 775
- Points
- 118
- Age
- 45
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
After the events at Nakatomi Plaza, John McLane couldn't possibly imagine things getting any worse. Unfortunately for him they do, as terrorists seize control of Dulles Airport and prevent his wife's plane from landing. McLane realizes that she is running out of fuel and so takes it upon himself to once again take on these terrorists and save the day. This time is going to be even rougher than the last, but McLane is up the challenge and he's willing to do whatever it takes to succeed.
Die Hard 2 was released two years after the original, and while its not as strong as that film it is still a perfectly acceptable action movie. There are complaints sure, but there always are with sequels and though there are issues they don't really get in the way. Following the successful formula of the first movie, the second one enhances the experience by adding more violence, more mayhem and more explosions than before. At the same time, it also manages to do the near impossible and make its star seem like even more of a badass than he did in the first one. That's not always a good thing as we will shortly see, but it nevertheless further cemented Bruce Willis' place among the legends of action cinema. More than that, its just a film that remembers the cardinal rule, that being not to take itself too seriously. It's over the top, its chaotic and sometimes its downright ludicrous, but if you can tell me that you don't enjoy stuff like that then I'll say you're a liar and you're boring. Die Hard 2 does indeed bring a lot to the table, and that's what should be focused on in an action sequel.
"MORE EXPLOSIONS!!!!
Directed by Renny Harlin (who had previously done A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 and would go on to direct Cliffhanger) and written by Steven E. de Souza (wrote the original as well) and Doug Richardson (who would eventually write Bad Boys and Willis film Hostage), the film could have been perceived solely as an attempt to cash in on the success of the first, which would have been fine. However, Harlin was not content to simply copy the original and so attempts to put his own stamp on the affair, to mixed results. At times it appears his pacing is greatly deliberate and at others his direction seems sloppy. He was still relatively new at this point so I don't hold it against him, but comparing him and the original director John McTiernan is like looking at the proverbial apples and oranges. The screenplay is well written and manages to provide for plenty of action while still sticking with the humour of the original. It's a good thing that de Souza was back, as his imprint on the characters is very noticeable. Speaking of the characters, it was great to see a large portion of the cast return, and the new one's are quite good as well.
"I swear I've got a copy of Hudson Hawk in here somewhere."
Bruce Willis returns to the role that made him famous and by this point he really IS John McLane for all intents and purposes. He carries himself well and I actually found he did as good a job here as in the first one. Bonnie Bedelia returns as his wife and actually has to spend the majority of the film sitting opposite William Atherton. These two provide much of the humour during some tense moments and really play off each other well. Atherton in particular is so great as the Dick Thornberg character that I'm sad he was only in these two films. Thornberg would have been a welcome addition to the future one's as well, he's just that smarmy and I love it. Future NYPD Blue ass-bearer Dennis Franz shows up as a totally inept airport cop (don't worry, he keeps his pants on) while William Sadler plays lead villain Col. Stuart well if somewhat reserved. I have to point out how hilarious I find the scene where he turns off his television near the start because, well because its hilarious to me and that's all you need to know. John Amos and Art Evans add some nice support and to be honest, everyone here really knows their place in the film and plays their parts well.
"Ok, so he's a little more superhuman than in the last one."
If there's one major gripe I have with this film its the fact that they killed the essence of what made the McLane character great in the first one...his human qualities. In that film, he could be damaged by walking on broken glass and at one point almost gave up because of the strain the ordeal was taking on his body. Here he dodges bullets, narrowly avoids being HIT BY AN AIRPLANE and finally manages to eject himself out of another plane to prevent being blown up. I get that Harlin wanted to be more over the top than the original, but its hard to see this as the same guy from the first film. Thankfully it isn't too much of an issue, though it is something that's always stuck with me hence why I bring it up. Outside of that, I could have done with a little less predictability in the story line (did anyone else immediately realize there was a set-up between the two military factions?) and a little less cheesy humour ("just the fax ma'am") but again, its not enough to drag the film down too much in my eyes. It's important to remember that they were really going for a "go big or go home" feel with this film, and in that they certainly succeeded admirably. Speaking of "go big or go home", how about killing a dude with a FU*KING ICICLE?
Ouch, talk about a serious ice cream headache eh? Alright, enough of my cheap attempts at humour, let's get to the good stuff. There's a lot of it, as I simply cannot help but love the McLane character no matter whether he's more invincible this time around or not. Willis is really charismatic in the role and manages to keep the character fresh even though it shouldn't be. I loved the tension during the scene where Col. Stuart forces the airplane to crash and the depressing shot of a teddy bear in the wreckage. In fact, I remember actually being kind of upset about that whole scenario when first watching the film years ago, so its clear that whatever Harlin was doing worked well. Outside of all that, there's just so much action that its impossible to turn away from the film for even a second. I love that it has a runtime of over 2 hours but doesn't feel nearly that long. That's the mark of a good film, one that holds your interest throughout, and for all the issues I listed above, it never does anything but that. So while its nowhere near as good as the original (as if anything really ever could be) its still a solid piece on its own and a welcome addition to the franchise.
"My house is down there and its filled with popcorn. 10 Points to whoever gets that reference."
Die Hard 2 was shot on a budget of $70 million (probably for all those planes they kept blowing up) and grossed over $239 million at the box office, making it another huge success and ensuring a third film would most likely be on the way soon. Unfortunately the public would have to wait nearly 5 more years for another adventure, but it would prove to be worth it. We'll be checking that little gem out tomorrow so you know damn well you want to be here for that. Die Hard 2 has issues sure, and as I say its not as good as the original, but the fact that it doesn't try to be really works in its favour. As far as great action goes, you could certainly do a hell of a lot worse. 7.5/10
"Why thank you Fuji, I love Family Matters too. Do the Urkel and I'll see you tomorrow."
Die Hard 2
After the events at Nakatomi Plaza, John McLane couldn't possibly imagine things getting any worse. Unfortunately for him they do, as terrorists seize control of Dulles Airport and prevent his wife's plane from landing. McLane realizes that she is running out of fuel and so takes it upon himself to once again take on these terrorists and save the day. This time is going to be even rougher than the last, but McLane is up the challenge and he's willing to do whatever it takes to succeed.
Die Hard 2 was released two years after the original, and while its not as strong as that film it is still a perfectly acceptable action movie. There are complaints sure, but there always are with sequels and though there are issues they don't really get in the way. Following the successful formula of the first movie, the second one enhances the experience by adding more violence, more mayhem and more explosions than before. At the same time, it also manages to do the near impossible and make its star seem like even more of a badass than he did in the first one. That's not always a good thing as we will shortly see, but it nevertheless further cemented Bruce Willis' place among the legends of action cinema. More than that, its just a film that remembers the cardinal rule, that being not to take itself too seriously. It's over the top, its chaotic and sometimes its downright ludicrous, but if you can tell me that you don't enjoy stuff like that then I'll say you're a liar and you're boring. Die Hard 2 does indeed bring a lot to the table, and that's what should be focused on in an action sequel.
"MORE EXPLOSIONS!!!!
Directed by Renny Harlin (who had previously done A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 and would go on to direct Cliffhanger) and written by Steven E. de Souza (wrote the original as well) and Doug Richardson (who would eventually write Bad Boys and Willis film Hostage), the film could have been perceived solely as an attempt to cash in on the success of the first, which would have been fine. However, Harlin was not content to simply copy the original and so attempts to put his own stamp on the affair, to mixed results. At times it appears his pacing is greatly deliberate and at others his direction seems sloppy. He was still relatively new at this point so I don't hold it against him, but comparing him and the original director John McTiernan is like looking at the proverbial apples and oranges. The screenplay is well written and manages to provide for plenty of action while still sticking with the humour of the original. It's a good thing that de Souza was back, as his imprint on the characters is very noticeable. Speaking of the characters, it was great to see a large portion of the cast return, and the new one's are quite good as well.
"I swear I've got a copy of Hudson Hawk in here somewhere."
Bruce Willis returns to the role that made him famous and by this point he really IS John McLane for all intents and purposes. He carries himself well and I actually found he did as good a job here as in the first one. Bonnie Bedelia returns as his wife and actually has to spend the majority of the film sitting opposite William Atherton. These two provide much of the humour during some tense moments and really play off each other well. Atherton in particular is so great as the Dick Thornberg character that I'm sad he was only in these two films. Thornberg would have been a welcome addition to the future one's as well, he's just that smarmy and I love it. Future NYPD Blue ass-bearer Dennis Franz shows up as a totally inept airport cop (don't worry, he keeps his pants on) while William Sadler plays lead villain Col. Stuart well if somewhat reserved. I have to point out how hilarious I find the scene where he turns off his television near the start because, well because its hilarious to me and that's all you need to know. John Amos and Art Evans add some nice support and to be honest, everyone here really knows their place in the film and plays their parts well.
"Ok, so he's a little more superhuman than in the last one."
If there's one major gripe I have with this film its the fact that they killed the essence of what made the McLane character great in the first one...his human qualities. In that film, he could be damaged by walking on broken glass and at one point almost gave up because of the strain the ordeal was taking on his body. Here he dodges bullets, narrowly avoids being HIT BY AN AIRPLANE and finally manages to eject himself out of another plane to prevent being blown up. I get that Harlin wanted to be more over the top than the original, but its hard to see this as the same guy from the first film. Thankfully it isn't too much of an issue, though it is something that's always stuck with me hence why I bring it up. Outside of that, I could have done with a little less predictability in the story line (did anyone else immediately realize there was a set-up between the two military factions?) and a little less cheesy humour ("just the fax ma'am") but again, its not enough to drag the film down too much in my eyes. It's important to remember that they were really going for a "go big or go home" feel with this film, and in that they certainly succeeded admirably. Speaking of "go big or go home", how about killing a dude with a FU*KING ICICLE?
[video=youtube;6QDf9KgAmjQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QDf9KgAmjQ[/video]
Ouch, talk about a serious ice cream headache eh? Alright, enough of my cheap attempts at humour, let's get to the good stuff. There's a lot of it, as I simply cannot help but love the McLane character no matter whether he's more invincible this time around or not. Willis is really charismatic in the role and manages to keep the character fresh even though it shouldn't be. I loved the tension during the scene where Col. Stuart forces the airplane to crash and the depressing shot of a teddy bear in the wreckage. In fact, I remember actually being kind of upset about that whole scenario when first watching the film years ago, so its clear that whatever Harlin was doing worked well. Outside of all that, there's just so much action that its impossible to turn away from the film for even a second. I love that it has a runtime of over 2 hours but doesn't feel nearly that long. That's the mark of a good film, one that holds your interest throughout, and for all the issues I listed above, it never does anything but that. So while its nowhere near as good as the original (as if anything really ever could be) its still a solid piece on its own and a welcome addition to the franchise.
"My house is down there and its filled with popcorn. 10 Points to whoever gets that reference."
Die Hard 2 was shot on a budget of $70 million (probably for all those planes they kept blowing up) and grossed over $239 million at the box office, making it another huge success and ensuring a third film would most likely be on the way soon. Unfortunately the public would have to wait nearly 5 more years for another adventure, but it would prove to be worth it. We'll be checking that little gem out tomorrow so you know damn well you want to be here for that. Die Hard 2 has issues sure, and as I say its not as good as the original, but the fact that it doesn't try to be really works in its favour. As far as great action goes, you could certainly do a hell of a lot worse. 7.5/10
"Why thank you Fuji, I love Family Matters too. Do the Urkel and I'll see you tomorrow."
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 20,922
- Reaction score
- 3,814
- Points
- 138
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Dancing
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
You da man fuji. Love the Die Hard movie. Yippie Kayay Mother fucker.
You da man fuji. Love the Die Hard movie. Yippie Kayay Mother fucker.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 25,302
- Reaction score
- 775
- Points
- 118
- Age
- 45
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
John McClane has been having a rough go of it lately, once again estranged from his wife and clearly looking a lot worse for the wear. He's forced to snap out of his funk however, when a bomber starts targeting New York. This bomber appears to have a special affinity for McClane and attempts to toy with him. He's toying with the wrong man though, as McClane is not in a joking mood, and he, along with a militant black man named Zues, are going to stop at nothing to take this bomber down.
Die Hard: With a Vengeance, released in 1995, is the third chapter in the Die Hard quadrilogy and a very entertaining one at that. Taking the basic plot elements of the first two and adding a playful twist with the use of puzzles, the film manages to surpass the standard action fare of the day and become something a little more cerebral. At the same time, it still manages to remind us of all the great things that we love about the series as a whole and the main character in particular. Adding a perfect foil for him and a top notch villain only served to raise the bar even higher. I often find myself choosing to watch this film over the second or fourth instalments, as I feel it does more than they do to entertain me throughout. Sometimes I like to do a little thinking during my action films, and this is one of those that allow for it. Though it may have taken 5 years, normally a long time between sequels, Die Hard: With a Vengeance was certainly worth the wait.
"Ok, I'm seeing a trend here...."
Directed by John McTiernan, the same man who helmed the first film and written by Jonathan Hensleigh (who would later write and direct The Punisher), it works in almost every way. McTiernan was still quite hot at this time, having just come off the totally underrated Last Action Hero and Sean Connery vehicle Medicine Man. His style is instantly on display here and his sense of pacing is as excellent as always. He also manages to shoehorn in a lot of action and some real tension during the more suspense-oriented moments. The screenplay is as solid as one could expect from a man who had previously only written episodes of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Hensleigh's script is tightly wound and doesn't feel the need to go off on tangents, which is a real strength. I had issues with some of the characters being slightly unnecessary but they weren't enough to bother me, particularly when there are so many more good than bad.
"Hey Bruce, its Demi's divorce lawyer. Boy am I gonna' take you to the cleaners!"
Bruce Willis rules. I just wanted to get that out of the way because after watching these films again its simply the truth. Here he gives my personal favourite performance as the McLane character. He just encompasses the sum total of both past ones to create the finished product and its a real treat to see it. He's beaten down, but not capable of stopping his basic desire to get the bad guy while terminating everyone that tries to stop him. More than any other iteration of the character, I felt this McLane was on the edge and ready to snap at any moment, which he does from time to time. Samuel L. Jackson is cast as Zeus, his "buddy", and does a great job working off of Willis. These two come across as a more modern version of the classic odd couple pairing, and they certainly get plenty of opportunities to shine on screen together. One of my favourite moments with these two is the following scene, mainly because I'd heard the riddle before but was interested to see how they'd go about solving it. McLane's hilarious question about what the guy and his wives are doing is one of the funniest moments in the film for sure, or at least it is to me.
Outside of their awesome work, the rest of the cast is quite good as well. There's a nice appearance from token Indian actor Graham Greene (I met him once and he was very funny in describing himself that way) as a fellow cop. Kevin Chamberlin stars as a bomb expert and has the chance to do some funny work while and even The Shredder himself, James Saito, makes a small appearance as a Korean storekeeper. On the villain side of things, Jeremy Irons is cast as Simon, the main bad guy and brother to Hans Gruber who has a hard on for McLane. Irons is a fantastic actor to begin with, but he really sinks his teeth into the part of Simon and makes it his own. He is a great antagonist for McLane to pursue and its a shame that he's saddled with such cookie cutter allies. Indeed, the characters of Targo and Katya are pretty bland and outside of a cool scene where Katya carves up a security guard and another where Targo fights McLane, they don't have a lot to offer. I get that there needed to be some stereotypical villains as well as a unique one, but I honestly think the film suffered a little because of them.
"I shoud have killed them all and done this myself."
There's not a lot of downtime in this film, which is one of its real strong points. Even though it crams in as much action as possible it still manages to keep a cohesive story and some real suspense. The element of the riddles is one that I've always enjoyed and once the real plot comes together it really does make sense. Speaking of the real plot, it is one of the most ingenious that I have ever seen in a film and I honestly believe that it could work in real life. There are also a lot of great moments such as the early portion where McLane has to walk through Harlem wearing a sign with a less than kind statement about black people on it. I've also always loved the scene where Zeus is driving and McLane suddenly comes flying out of a sewer pipe in a blast of water because its really funny to me and just something I could totally see happening to McLane. The finale was a little rushed and certainly not as great as I remembered it (and why is Irons walking around like he has a pickle in his ass?) but it does cap off the film well and send the audience home happy. The best thing about the Die Hard series to this point was that it knew exactly what it had to do to entertain, and this film is no different. It's not up to the lofty standards set by the original, but it tells its own story well and is quite serviceable when all is said and done.
"What happened to my purple lightsaber?"
Die Hard: With a Vengeance was shot on a budget of $90 million and ended up grossing over $360 million at the box office, once again proving that Willis was a dynamite draw. Aside from that, it also managed to do something a little different from the previous two and distanced itself from the scenarios presented in those films. In doing so, it opened the door for the series to take several different directions, so it would come to some as a shock that it would take another 12 years for the eventual follow up to be released. That's a long time to wait for another movie, and some question whether it was really worth it. We'll be looking at it tomorrow since I can't make you wait as long as the producers here did, but today its time to score Die Hard: With a Vengeance and give it a solid 8/10 and a strong recommendation to watch. The combination of Willis and Jackson is great, the plot is precise, and Irons rocks. So check it out today and be back tomorrow when we'll Live Free....or Die Hard!
"I told you women couldn't drive."
Die Hard: With a Vengeance
John McClane has been having a rough go of it lately, once again estranged from his wife and clearly looking a lot worse for the wear. He's forced to snap out of his funk however, when a bomber starts targeting New York. This bomber appears to have a special affinity for McClane and attempts to toy with him. He's toying with the wrong man though, as McClane is not in a joking mood, and he, along with a militant black man named Zues, are going to stop at nothing to take this bomber down.
Die Hard: With a Vengeance, released in 1995, is the third chapter in the Die Hard quadrilogy and a very entertaining one at that. Taking the basic plot elements of the first two and adding a playful twist with the use of puzzles, the film manages to surpass the standard action fare of the day and become something a little more cerebral. At the same time, it still manages to remind us of all the great things that we love about the series as a whole and the main character in particular. Adding a perfect foil for him and a top notch villain only served to raise the bar even higher. I often find myself choosing to watch this film over the second or fourth instalments, as I feel it does more than they do to entertain me throughout. Sometimes I like to do a little thinking during my action films, and this is one of those that allow for it. Though it may have taken 5 years, normally a long time between sequels, Die Hard: With a Vengeance was certainly worth the wait.
"Ok, I'm seeing a trend here...."
Directed by John McTiernan, the same man who helmed the first film and written by Jonathan Hensleigh (who would later write and direct The Punisher), it works in almost every way. McTiernan was still quite hot at this time, having just come off the totally underrated Last Action Hero and Sean Connery vehicle Medicine Man. His style is instantly on display here and his sense of pacing is as excellent as always. He also manages to shoehorn in a lot of action and some real tension during the more suspense-oriented moments. The screenplay is as solid as one could expect from a man who had previously only written episodes of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Hensleigh's script is tightly wound and doesn't feel the need to go off on tangents, which is a real strength. I had issues with some of the characters being slightly unnecessary but they weren't enough to bother me, particularly when there are so many more good than bad.
"Hey Bruce, its Demi's divorce lawyer. Boy am I gonna' take you to the cleaners!"
Bruce Willis rules. I just wanted to get that out of the way because after watching these films again its simply the truth. Here he gives my personal favourite performance as the McLane character. He just encompasses the sum total of both past ones to create the finished product and its a real treat to see it. He's beaten down, but not capable of stopping his basic desire to get the bad guy while terminating everyone that tries to stop him. More than any other iteration of the character, I felt this McLane was on the edge and ready to snap at any moment, which he does from time to time. Samuel L. Jackson is cast as Zeus, his "buddy", and does a great job working off of Willis. These two come across as a more modern version of the classic odd couple pairing, and they certainly get plenty of opportunities to shine on screen together. One of my favourite moments with these two is the following scene, mainly because I'd heard the riddle before but was interested to see how they'd go about solving it. McLane's hilarious question about what the guy and his wives are doing is one of the funniest moments in the film for sure, or at least it is to me.
[video=youtube;8R3GKtqMwrY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R3GKtqMwrY[/video]
Outside of their awesome work, the rest of the cast is quite good as well. There's a nice appearance from token Indian actor Graham Greene (I met him once and he was very funny in describing himself that way) as a fellow cop. Kevin Chamberlin stars as a bomb expert and has the chance to do some funny work while and even The Shredder himself, James Saito, makes a small appearance as a Korean storekeeper. On the villain side of things, Jeremy Irons is cast as Simon, the main bad guy and brother to Hans Gruber who has a hard on for McLane. Irons is a fantastic actor to begin with, but he really sinks his teeth into the part of Simon and makes it his own. He is a great antagonist for McLane to pursue and its a shame that he's saddled with such cookie cutter allies. Indeed, the characters of Targo and Katya are pretty bland and outside of a cool scene where Katya carves up a security guard and another where Targo fights McLane, they don't have a lot to offer. I get that there needed to be some stereotypical villains as well as a unique one, but I honestly think the film suffered a little because of them.
"I shoud have killed them all and done this myself."
There's not a lot of downtime in this film, which is one of its real strong points. Even though it crams in as much action as possible it still manages to keep a cohesive story and some real suspense. The element of the riddles is one that I've always enjoyed and once the real plot comes together it really does make sense. Speaking of the real plot, it is one of the most ingenious that I have ever seen in a film and I honestly believe that it could work in real life. There are also a lot of great moments such as the early portion where McLane has to walk through Harlem wearing a sign with a less than kind statement about black people on it. I've also always loved the scene where Zeus is driving and McLane suddenly comes flying out of a sewer pipe in a blast of water because its really funny to me and just something I could totally see happening to McLane. The finale was a little rushed and certainly not as great as I remembered it (and why is Irons walking around like he has a pickle in his ass?) but it does cap off the film well and send the audience home happy. The best thing about the Die Hard series to this point was that it knew exactly what it had to do to entertain, and this film is no different. It's not up to the lofty standards set by the original, but it tells its own story well and is quite serviceable when all is said and done.
"What happened to my purple lightsaber?"
Die Hard: With a Vengeance was shot on a budget of $90 million and ended up grossing over $360 million at the box office, once again proving that Willis was a dynamite draw. Aside from that, it also managed to do something a little different from the previous two and distanced itself from the scenarios presented in those films. In doing so, it opened the door for the series to take several different directions, so it would come to some as a shock that it would take another 12 years for the eventual follow up to be released. That's a long time to wait for another movie, and some question whether it was really worth it. We'll be looking at it tomorrow since I can't make you wait as long as the producers here did, but today its time to score Die Hard: With a Vengeance and give it a solid 8/10 and a strong recommendation to watch. The combination of Willis and Jackson is great, the plot is precise, and Irons rocks. So check it out today and be back tomorrow when we'll Live Free....or Die Hard!
"I told you women couldn't drive."
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
^ Love it. I loved Die Hard With a Vengeance. I loved the sense of competition in the film, definitely gave it a different vibe from the first two.
^ Love it. I loved Die Hard With a Vengeance. I loved the sense of competition in the film, definitely gave it a different vibe from the first two.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 25,302
- Reaction score
- 775
- Points
- 118
- Age
- 45
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
Yep, the little puzzles totally made it great. That was a perfect way to freshen up the concept, unlike what they tried to do with the next film. We'll have to wait until tomorrow for that one though....
Yep, the little puzzles totally made it great. That was a perfect way to freshen up the concept, unlike what they tried to do with the next film. We'll have to wait until tomorrow for that one though....
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
I actually enjoyed Die Hard 2 more than With A Vengeance, the plane scene was awesome. 3 was great for some comedy though! Glad all of them are getting some love. I hope you aren't going to hate on 4....
I actually enjoyed Die Hard 2 more than With A Vengeance, the plane scene was awesome. 3 was great for some comedy though! Glad all of them are getting some love. I hope you aren't going to hate on 4....
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
The best bit in With A Vengeance is when Willis accuses Samuel L. Jackson of being racist and Jackson's like 'smurf, what dah fuck you talking 'bout?'
The best bit in With A Vengeance is when Willis accuses Samuel L. Jackson of being racist and Jackson's like 'smurf, what dah fuck you talking 'bout?'
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 25,302
- Reaction score
- 775
- Points
- 118
- Age
- 45
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
After somebody hacks into the computers at the FBI's Cyber Crime Division; the Director decides to round up all the hackers who could have pulled it off. Unfortunately its the 4th of July weekend and so many of his agents aren't around. He decides to get local cops to handle this and of course one of those cops just happens to be John McClane. Though McClane is initially hesitant, he soon realizes the hacker he's trying to escort, a man named Farrell, has been targeted by some very bad people who will stop at nothing to kill him. It's up to McClane to discover the endgame of these terrorists and save Farrell before they're both killed.
After a 12 year hiatus from the Die Hard franchise, 2007 saw the release of version 4.0 (as it was originally titled), Live Free or Die Hard. In many ways, the wait was worth it and in others it was not. While it gave its lead actor a chance to focus on other projects and really grow more as an actor, the time off also aged him and so there were fears he may have been too old to play the character. Ultimately these fears were unfounded, as he was more than willing to step up to the challenge. Unfortunately some of the people involved in the project were not, and instead attempted to make a loose version of the original series of films. Taking just enough elements of the originals to make it "seem" like a Die Hard film, they also managed to turn it into something else and that's not always a good thing. While it certainly works as an updated version of the franchise, it suffers from too much of the unbelievable and a weak villain. The original films prided themselves on providing the exact opposite of that, realism and strong antagonists. It doesn't drag the film down to unwatchable depths, but it does hurt it, which is a shame considering how long it took to be released.
"Yep, more explosions. It IS a Die Hard movie after all."
Directed by Len Wiseman (who had previously done the first two Underworld films) and written by Mark Bomback (previously wrote the awful films The Night Caller and The Godsend) from a story by he and co-writer David Marconi (wrote Enemy of the State), the film actually owes a lot of its creation to an article written by British author John Carlin entitled "A Farewell to Arms". This article was published in Wired magazine and is well worth checking out. In fact its so good it completely shatters the screenplay that Bomback came up with, but then that's not a surprise considering his previous "efforts". Sadly, I actually enjoyed Enemy of the State and would have preferred Marconi to have written this film as well, as opposed to just the story. It definitely would have turned out more logical and coherent than Bomback's pedestrian script, but I can't have everything I want can I? Wiseman's direction is solid if unspectacular and he paces the film well, though even he is subject to drowning in his own excesses from time to time.
"It only hurts when I read the script."
Bruce Willis turns in an excellent performance here and its just a shame that he's hampered with totally inane dialogue half the time. He does get his requisite amount of "McClane-isms" in but they are few and far between here. In fact, I'd almost preferred if his dialogue had been cut in half, because at least half of the bad stuff would be gone. This older and even tougher version of McClane is pretty cool though, and when he's not hampered by the words he's kicking all kinds of ass, which is definitely a good thing. He's flanked in this film by Justin Long (AKA Mr. Drew Barrymore or the Mac from those annoying commercials) as the man he must protect. Long is a pretty funny actor and he manages to use that style to great effect here. He also comes across as a believable hacker-character, which lends some realism to the affair. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is smoking hot and really, does it matter whether she can act or not? Of course it doesn't, but she actually can so that works out well too. Here she plays McClane's daughter Lucy and makes the most out of her screen time. However I have to say that the undisputed champ of this film is Kevin Smith in a hilarious cameo as Warlock, another hacker who lives in his mom's basement. His exchanges of dialogue with Willis are particularly great and really help to make the film better.
"She's even hot when she's making funny faces."
The first major issue with this film comes in the form of the lead villain, played by Timothy Olyphant. I actually like Olyphant in a lot of films, including The Girl Next Door and A Perfect Getaway but here I couldn't stand the guy. I don't know what exactly it was but there was just no way I could buy him as the lead villain, particularly when you consider the guys McClane has gone up against in the past. This guy is not Hans Gruber, that's for sure, and I believe it really hurts the film a lot to have him featured so prominently. In fact, I prefer his evil female sidekick (played by Maggie Q) because she actually seems like she could give McClane a run for his money (until he gets the best of her that is) and because she's smoking hot. Yep, all you yellow fever fans out there will be drooling over her, that much is certain. Thankfully she provides enough hotness to distract me from Olyphant's brutal character, but once she's gone all his flaws are magnified. It's really too bad because with the right villain this probably could have worked a lot better.
"In this we trust...."
As I mentioned earlier, this film is based on an excellent article entitled "A Farewell to Arms" and I once again advise you to read it if you are truly interested in the main themes portrayed in this film. Sadly, the way they are played out here can be seen as nothing more than scare tactics and propaganda, something that isn't going to educate anyone. Thankfully, the writer was just schizophrenic enough to remember that he needed to have explosions and action in his film as well. There's a great moment where McClane "kills" a helicopter with a car that, while unbelievable, is such a spectacle that its alright. Unfortunately a little later on we're treated to perhaps the most unrealistic scene in any Die Hard film EVER when McClane is chased by an F35B Lightning while driving a semi. I get that they were attempting to show how dangerous control of the computers could be, but seriously, a jet chasing a truck? Come on writers, lets try a little bit harder next time ok? I actually hope there is a next time so that this isn't the last film featuring the character of McClane. While I enjoyed parts of it, I also thought it was easily the weakest effort in the series and certainly not the way I want to see Willis ride off into the sunset.
"He's been using a PC for this whole film, TRAITOR!!"
Live Free or Die Hard was shot on a budget of $110 million and earned over $134 million at the box office, not exactly stellar numbers when compared to the previous efforts. It's not like it deserved to get little to no love, it wasn't that bad, but there was definitely something different about it and I think that contributed to its lack of success. While it does have its slam bang action moments it also has a lot of muddled plot and a really weak villain. I know I've harped on about it a lot, but as I said, when you compare Olyphant to Rickman, Sadler and Irons, he certainly pales in comparison. However, even with all that, I still enjoyed the movie and though it wasn't the best it sure as hell isn't close to the worst action film I've ever seen. It's just that when you compare it to its predecessors, it doesn't measure up, though should we really have believed it would in the first place? 6.5/10
"LOL WUT?"
Live Free or Die Hard
After somebody hacks into the computers at the FBI's Cyber Crime Division; the Director decides to round up all the hackers who could have pulled it off. Unfortunately its the 4th of July weekend and so many of his agents aren't around. He decides to get local cops to handle this and of course one of those cops just happens to be John McClane. Though McClane is initially hesitant, he soon realizes the hacker he's trying to escort, a man named Farrell, has been targeted by some very bad people who will stop at nothing to kill him. It's up to McClane to discover the endgame of these terrorists and save Farrell before they're both killed.
After a 12 year hiatus from the Die Hard franchise, 2007 saw the release of version 4.0 (as it was originally titled), Live Free or Die Hard. In many ways, the wait was worth it and in others it was not. While it gave its lead actor a chance to focus on other projects and really grow more as an actor, the time off also aged him and so there were fears he may have been too old to play the character. Ultimately these fears were unfounded, as he was more than willing to step up to the challenge. Unfortunately some of the people involved in the project were not, and instead attempted to make a loose version of the original series of films. Taking just enough elements of the originals to make it "seem" like a Die Hard film, they also managed to turn it into something else and that's not always a good thing. While it certainly works as an updated version of the franchise, it suffers from too much of the unbelievable and a weak villain. The original films prided themselves on providing the exact opposite of that, realism and strong antagonists. It doesn't drag the film down to unwatchable depths, but it does hurt it, which is a shame considering how long it took to be released.
"Yep, more explosions. It IS a Die Hard movie after all."
Directed by Len Wiseman (who had previously done the first two Underworld films) and written by Mark Bomback (previously wrote the awful films The Night Caller and The Godsend) from a story by he and co-writer David Marconi (wrote Enemy of the State), the film actually owes a lot of its creation to an article written by British author John Carlin entitled "A Farewell to Arms". This article was published in Wired magazine and is well worth checking out. In fact its so good it completely shatters the screenplay that Bomback came up with, but then that's not a surprise considering his previous "efforts". Sadly, I actually enjoyed Enemy of the State and would have preferred Marconi to have written this film as well, as opposed to just the story. It definitely would have turned out more logical and coherent than Bomback's pedestrian script, but I can't have everything I want can I? Wiseman's direction is solid if unspectacular and he paces the film well, though even he is subject to drowning in his own excesses from time to time.
"It only hurts when I read the script."
Bruce Willis turns in an excellent performance here and its just a shame that he's hampered with totally inane dialogue half the time. He does get his requisite amount of "McClane-isms" in but they are few and far between here. In fact, I'd almost preferred if his dialogue had been cut in half, because at least half of the bad stuff would be gone. This older and even tougher version of McClane is pretty cool though, and when he's not hampered by the words he's kicking all kinds of ass, which is definitely a good thing. He's flanked in this film by Justin Long (AKA Mr. Drew Barrymore or the Mac from those annoying commercials) as the man he must protect. Long is a pretty funny actor and he manages to use that style to great effect here. He also comes across as a believable hacker-character, which lends some realism to the affair. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is smoking hot and really, does it matter whether she can act or not? Of course it doesn't, but she actually can so that works out well too. Here she plays McClane's daughter Lucy and makes the most out of her screen time. However I have to say that the undisputed champ of this film is Kevin Smith in a hilarious cameo as Warlock, another hacker who lives in his mom's basement. His exchanges of dialogue with Willis are particularly great and really help to make the film better.
"She's even hot when she's making funny faces."
The first major issue with this film comes in the form of the lead villain, played by Timothy Olyphant. I actually like Olyphant in a lot of films, including The Girl Next Door and A Perfect Getaway but here I couldn't stand the guy. I don't know what exactly it was but there was just no way I could buy him as the lead villain, particularly when you consider the guys McClane has gone up against in the past. This guy is not Hans Gruber, that's for sure, and I believe it really hurts the film a lot to have him featured so prominently. In fact, I prefer his evil female sidekick (played by Maggie Q) because she actually seems like she could give McClane a run for his money (until he gets the best of her that is) and because she's smoking hot. Yep, all you yellow fever fans out there will be drooling over her, that much is certain. Thankfully she provides enough hotness to distract me from Olyphant's brutal character, but once she's gone all his flaws are magnified. It's really too bad because with the right villain this probably could have worked a lot better.
"In this we trust...."
As I mentioned earlier, this film is based on an excellent article entitled "A Farewell to Arms" and I once again advise you to read it if you are truly interested in the main themes portrayed in this film. Sadly, the way they are played out here can be seen as nothing more than scare tactics and propaganda, something that isn't going to educate anyone. Thankfully, the writer was just schizophrenic enough to remember that he needed to have explosions and action in his film as well. There's a great moment where McClane "kills" a helicopter with a car that, while unbelievable, is such a spectacle that its alright. Unfortunately a little later on we're treated to perhaps the most unrealistic scene in any Die Hard film EVER when McClane is chased by an F35B Lightning while driving a semi. I get that they were attempting to show how dangerous control of the computers could be, but seriously, a jet chasing a truck? Come on writers, lets try a little bit harder next time ok? I actually hope there is a next time so that this isn't the last film featuring the character of McClane. While I enjoyed parts of it, I also thought it was easily the weakest effort in the series and certainly not the way I want to see Willis ride off into the sunset.
"He's been using a PC for this whole film, TRAITOR!!"
Live Free or Die Hard was shot on a budget of $110 million and earned over $134 million at the box office, not exactly stellar numbers when compared to the previous efforts. It's not like it deserved to get little to no love, it wasn't that bad, but there was definitely something different about it and I think that contributed to its lack of success. While it does have its slam bang action moments it also has a lot of muddled plot and a really weak villain. I know I've harped on about it a lot, but as I said, when you compare Olyphant to Rickman, Sadler and Irons, he certainly pales in comparison. However, even with all that, I still enjoyed the movie and though it wasn't the best it sure as hell isn't close to the worst action film I've ever seen. It's just that when you compare it to its predecessors, it doesn't measure up, though should we really have believed it would in the first place? 6.5/10
"LOL WUT?"
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 20,922
- Reaction score
- 3,814
- Points
- 138
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Dancing
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
I like all four of them. The last one seems like a more realistic threat than anything else as here in the US we have our infrastucture set up so poorly.
Live Free was ok, but decent for what it was. I loved Part III because of Irons Simon character and Jackson cracked me up in it. There are rumors of a 4th movie being made no too and it will be in another country believe.
I like all four of them. The last one seems like a more realistic threat than anything else as here in the US we have our infrastucture set up so poorly.
Live Free was ok, but decent for what it was. I loved Part III because of Irons Simon character and Jackson cracked me up in it. There are rumors of a 4th movie being made no too and it will be in another country believe.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 25,302
- Reaction score
- 775
- Points
- 118
- Age
- 45
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
In the year 2047 a group of astronauts are sent to investigate and salvage the long lost starship "Event Horizon". The ship disappeared mysteriously 7 years before on its maiden voyage and with its return comes even more mystery as the crew of the "Lewis and Clark" discover the real truth behind its disappearance and something even more terrifying.
Event Horizon, released in 1997, is a film that I had not seen since that time. In fact, I clearly remember seeing it on the day of its release in the local theatre. Why do I remember it so clearly? Well folks, its because it was one of the scariest experiences of my life, and you tend to remember those. To make a long story short, some friends and I thought it would be a good idea to scarf down a bunch of mushrooms and check out this new sci-horror film that had just come out. Bad idea, as the combination of creepy visuals, jump scares and nasty audio effects proved to be way too much for our fragile little minds and nearly reduced all three of us to quivering piles of jelly. Luckily we escaped the theatre with our lives and vowed never to watch the film again, a vow I kept until this morning. I received a shipment of some other films that I’d ordered and this one somehow managed to make its way to me accidentally. So with great hesitation I tempted fate, popped it into the player….and realized drugs really do alter your perception of a film. It’s not that Event Horizon is bad, far from it, but it sure as hell wasn’t as scary as it was that fateful day in 1997. Actually, I’m glad I took the opportunity to check it out again, because there’s some creepy goodness going on in it for sure, and that’s something I know a lot of us can get behind.
â€Not exactly the first thing you want to see when boarding a ship.â€
Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (who had previously helmed the first Mortal Kombat film) and written by Phillip Eisner (who would go on to write The Mutant Chronicles), the film is more or less your standard sci-horror piece with the added element of a mystery story driving it forward. For the most part, Anderson’s direction is actually pretty good and though he’s certainly not opposed to indulging himself it never becomes a distraction. I’d say this is one of his better films but really, when you’ve direct such crapfests as AVP and Death Race that shouldn’t come as a surprise. Eisner’s script is pretty pedestrian, but the mystery elements he weaves into it work very well and had me guessing a couple of times. The fact that I really didn’t remember the film helped, and the script did enough to keep me engrossed as to what would happen next, so it did its job well. I’d complain about the usual cookie cutter characters that Eisner created, but thankfully the actors involved managed to rise above their stereotyped roles and bring forth a solid effort.
â€It doesn’t matter if you take the red pill or the blue pill this time.â€
Laurence Fishburne (don't call him Larry or he'll beat you like he beat Tina Turner) leads a very strong cast of distinct character actors here. While Fishburne was still a couple of years away from the role that would make him famous, he does a good job playing the reluctant leader of this rag-tag bunch of spacers that are tasked with "saving" the ship. Sam Neill (Jurassic Park) plays a slightly unhinged doctor, in fact the man who designed the ship in question, and does a great job with the role. He slowly descends into madness as the film progresses and by the end he is completely and totally over the top, though its in a good way. Support is lent from Kathleen Quinlan, Joely Richardson, Jason Isaacs, Jack Noseworthy, Sean Pertwee and Richard T. James, who has a chance to shine as ship handyman Cooper. In fact, James gets the lions share of comedic dialogue and does very well with it. I'd put him as my favourite character in the film, but the performance of Holley Chant as a vision of Neill's ex-wife (with no eyes) that he keeps seeing is easily the best character because of how creepy she is. Noseworthy in particular gets a chance to do some serious over-acting, but again its all good and seems to fit in perfectly with this film's style. The point here is that all the actors do good work with their rather bland characters, which really helps enhance the overall mood of the film. Considering the script is rather lacklustre, that's a very good thing indeed.
"If you're claustrophobic, stay the hell away from this film."
The ship itself is actually the true star of the film however, and easily manages to overshadow its human cast members throughout. First of all, the set design is impeccable and I can see a lot of love was put into creating this strangely beautiful yet completely insane looking machine. Anderson manages to use these sets to his advantage, creating a real claustrophobic atmosphere which really creeps out the viewer. On more than one occasion while watching I felt that there was something sneaking up behind me and no, it wasn't a flashback, the film's tone really does work that well. The idea that the ship is alive and is able to pick the greatest fears of its passengers to taunt them with is an interesting concept and while it doesn't always work I commend the efforts all the same. There's also an ongoing sub-plot involving a video that some of the passengers are trying to decode and let me just say that when they finally do there is some pretty gnarly stuff going on in it. Outside of that there's some cool scenes involving visuals aboard the ship (the core in particular is quite mesmerizing), a character decompressing in space and a ton of gore, definitely enough to please horror fiends everywhere. I also didn't mind the ending even if it was completely and totally predictable. Hey, sometimes endings like that work!
"Mushrooms + this = one hell of a trip."
Now that I've got through all the good I feel it only fair to warn you that there's also some bad here. I wasn't a huge fan of some of the sub-plot's involving the characters fears, in particular Fishburne's and Quinlan's. At the same time, I was also aggravated that not every cast member seemed to be effected by the ship. I mean really, would it have been that hard to add some fears onto the Cooper character? I guess the writer was so busy trying to figure out the next gruesome way to dispatch a crew member that he forgot the logic part of the equation. Bad plotting aside, there was a real over-emphasis on special effects from time to time, as is often the case with films like this. I think just a little more effort on the story and a little less on the effects would have done it wonders and would have resulted in a much better overall experience. That being said, its certainly not a horrible movie and as I said before, the acting manages to enhance it greatly. As a throwaway piece, its good for what it is, and I can certainly recommend it to anyone who likes sci-fi, horror or thrillers, as it does have a little bit of all those genres within. Plus the end credits roll out to "Funky Sh*t" by Prodigy, which is always a great tune to end a film on.
"I guess telling off the T-Rex wasn't such a good idea after all."
Event Horizon was shot on a budget of $50 million and only managed $26 million at the box office, which probably explains why there was never a sequel. Having to go up against films like Cop Land, Conspiracy Theory and Air Force One didn't help its chances of success, though that cannot fairly be used as an argument for why it didn't do well. I just think the sci-horror concept was a hard sell back in those days, unless of course you were selling to teenagers who wanted to drop mushrooms and trip out. Clearly there weren't enough of us around to propel it to greater financial profit, but at least I can sit here today and tell you that its definitely worth checking out if you're into hybrid film concepts, gore and the occasional boob shot. It's not going to blow you away and its not as scary as I once thought it was, but that doesn't mean its not a good distraction for 90 minutes. Take it that way and you'll probably enjoy it. 6/10
"Unfortunately DJ won't be joining us next time."
Event Horizon
In the year 2047 a group of astronauts are sent to investigate and salvage the long lost starship "Event Horizon". The ship disappeared mysteriously 7 years before on its maiden voyage and with its return comes even more mystery as the crew of the "Lewis and Clark" discover the real truth behind its disappearance and something even more terrifying.
Event Horizon, released in 1997, is a film that I had not seen since that time. In fact, I clearly remember seeing it on the day of its release in the local theatre. Why do I remember it so clearly? Well folks, its because it was one of the scariest experiences of my life, and you tend to remember those. To make a long story short, some friends and I thought it would be a good idea to scarf down a bunch of mushrooms and check out this new sci-horror film that had just come out. Bad idea, as the combination of creepy visuals, jump scares and nasty audio effects proved to be way too much for our fragile little minds and nearly reduced all three of us to quivering piles of jelly. Luckily we escaped the theatre with our lives and vowed never to watch the film again, a vow I kept until this morning. I received a shipment of some other films that I’d ordered and this one somehow managed to make its way to me accidentally. So with great hesitation I tempted fate, popped it into the player….and realized drugs really do alter your perception of a film. It’s not that Event Horizon is bad, far from it, but it sure as hell wasn’t as scary as it was that fateful day in 1997. Actually, I’m glad I took the opportunity to check it out again, because there’s some creepy goodness going on in it for sure, and that’s something I know a lot of us can get behind.
â€Not exactly the first thing you want to see when boarding a ship.â€
Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (who had previously helmed the first Mortal Kombat film) and written by Phillip Eisner (who would go on to write The Mutant Chronicles), the film is more or less your standard sci-horror piece with the added element of a mystery story driving it forward. For the most part, Anderson’s direction is actually pretty good and though he’s certainly not opposed to indulging himself it never becomes a distraction. I’d say this is one of his better films but really, when you’ve direct such crapfests as AVP and Death Race that shouldn’t come as a surprise. Eisner’s script is pretty pedestrian, but the mystery elements he weaves into it work very well and had me guessing a couple of times. The fact that I really didn’t remember the film helped, and the script did enough to keep me engrossed as to what would happen next, so it did its job well. I’d complain about the usual cookie cutter characters that Eisner created, but thankfully the actors involved managed to rise above their stereotyped roles and bring forth a solid effort.
â€It doesn’t matter if you take the red pill or the blue pill this time.â€
Laurence Fishburne (don't call him Larry or he'll beat you like he beat Tina Turner) leads a very strong cast of distinct character actors here. While Fishburne was still a couple of years away from the role that would make him famous, he does a good job playing the reluctant leader of this rag-tag bunch of spacers that are tasked with "saving" the ship. Sam Neill (Jurassic Park) plays a slightly unhinged doctor, in fact the man who designed the ship in question, and does a great job with the role. He slowly descends into madness as the film progresses and by the end he is completely and totally over the top, though its in a good way. Support is lent from Kathleen Quinlan, Joely Richardson, Jason Isaacs, Jack Noseworthy, Sean Pertwee and Richard T. James, who has a chance to shine as ship handyman Cooper. In fact, James gets the lions share of comedic dialogue and does very well with it. I'd put him as my favourite character in the film, but the performance of Holley Chant as a vision of Neill's ex-wife (with no eyes) that he keeps seeing is easily the best character because of how creepy she is. Noseworthy in particular gets a chance to do some serious over-acting, but again its all good and seems to fit in perfectly with this film's style. The point here is that all the actors do good work with their rather bland characters, which really helps enhance the overall mood of the film. Considering the script is rather lacklustre, that's a very good thing indeed.
"If you're claustrophobic, stay the hell away from this film."
The ship itself is actually the true star of the film however, and easily manages to overshadow its human cast members throughout. First of all, the set design is impeccable and I can see a lot of love was put into creating this strangely beautiful yet completely insane looking machine. Anderson manages to use these sets to his advantage, creating a real claustrophobic atmosphere which really creeps out the viewer. On more than one occasion while watching I felt that there was something sneaking up behind me and no, it wasn't a flashback, the film's tone really does work that well. The idea that the ship is alive and is able to pick the greatest fears of its passengers to taunt them with is an interesting concept and while it doesn't always work I commend the efforts all the same. There's also an ongoing sub-plot involving a video that some of the passengers are trying to decode and let me just say that when they finally do there is some pretty gnarly stuff going on in it. Outside of that there's some cool scenes involving visuals aboard the ship (the core in particular is quite mesmerizing), a character decompressing in space and a ton of gore, definitely enough to please horror fiends everywhere. I also didn't mind the ending even if it was completely and totally predictable. Hey, sometimes endings like that work!
"Mushrooms + this = one hell of a trip."
Now that I've got through all the good I feel it only fair to warn you that there's also some bad here. I wasn't a huge fan of some of the sub-plot's involving the characters fears, in particular Fishburne's and Quinlan's. At the same time, I was also aggravated that not every cast member seemed to be effected by the ship. I mean really, would it have been that hard to add some fears onto the Cooper character? I guess the writer was so busy trying to figure out the next gruesome way to dispatch a crew member that he forgot the logic part of the equation. Bad plotting aside, there was a real over-emphasis on special effects from time to time, as is often the case with films like this. I think just a little more effort on the story and a little less on the effects would have done it wonders and would have resulted in a much better overall experience. That being said, its certainly not a horrible movie and as I said before, the acting manages to enhance it greatly. As a throwaway piece, its good for what it is, and I can certainly recommend it to anyone who likes sci-fi, horror or thrillers, as it does have a little bit of all those genres within. Plus the end credits roll out to "Funky Sh*t" by Prodigy, which is always a great tune to end a film on.
"I guess telling off the T-Rex wasn't such a good idea after all."
Event Horizon was shot on a budget of $50 million and only managed $26 million at the box office, which probably explains why there was never a sequel. Having to go up against films like Cop Land, Conspiracy Theory and Air Force One didn't help its chances of success, though that cannot fairly be used as an argument for why it didn't do well. I just think the sci-horror concept was a hard sell back in those days, unless of course you were selling to teenagers who wanted to drop mushrooms and trip out. Clearly there weren't enough of us around to propel it to greater financial profit, but at least I can sit here today and tell you that its definitely worth checking out if you're into hybrid film concepts, gore and the occasional boob shot. It's not going to blow you away and its not as scary as I once thought it was, but that doesn't mean its not a good distraction for 90 minutes. Take it that way and you'll probably enjoy it. 6/10
"Unfortunately DJ won't be joining us next time."
Re: The Wing Kong Exchange
RE: Die Hard 4
I agree about the battle with the jet, ever time I see it I ask myself "am I really watching this happen?". But I'm glad you didn't shit over the rest of it, it's still a great popcorn flick.
RE: Die Hard 4
I agree about the battle with the jet, ever time I see it I ask myself "am I really watching this happen?". But I'm glad you didn't shit over the rest of it, it's still a great popcorn flick.