A different kind of spy movie. James (Colin Farrell) is the college kid who gets recruited into the CIA. We see him go from a civilian to an operative-in-training, in boot camp, learning the basic skills, not to mention learning some basic psychological devices.

What I really like about this story is how raw the characters are. This is not a story about a veteran in the field à la Jason Bourne, who knows everything, feels nothing, never fails. It's about a guy you can relate to, someone who is learning to understand, but still living through the pain of being put through all these things that are happening to him. The plot isn't brilliant, it's neat and tidy, almost simple. But the appeal of the movie isn't in that, it's in the characters, how real they are and how unrefined their reasoning and emotional response is.

The idea is nothing is what it seems, but they don't take this very far, they hold back so that the characters can tag along at their own pace. And that's.. nice. Most other stories try to push the envelope and many of them fail to resolve well. This one doesn't, and you can appreciate that they care more about the character development than the goal to have a complicated plot.

Enjoyable as it is, I just have to point out a few technical things. Forgive me, it's too much to look the other way, downright embarrassing at times. Okay, what the bad guys are after is "a virus", a computer virus. It turns out, though, that this is a magical virus that you can deploy right into the power socket in your house and it will infest the nation's whole power grid. Okay, that's just beyond bad. And James is the MIT kid who is a computer wiz. And we are supposed to buy this. Had they said it had something to do with electricity or whatever, maybe if they'd tried hard enough I'd bought it. But a computer virus on the power grid? Seriously, do 15min of research before you put that in a movie.

Secondly, as the guy duly explains, the CIA headquarters are well guarded, you can't take anything out of there. That's why the computers don't have disk drives. Yes, that's a quote. What kind of disk drives? Floppies? CDs? Zip drives? And you also can't print anything because they don't have printers. Uh-huh. Well that still leaves about a dozen different media you could use, including usb drives. And what do you know, that's precisely how the super clever villain exports this "virus" out of the building, hiding the usb stick in a coffee mug. Now, your typical computer virus is probably less than 1mb of source code, I mean these things have to be small to go unnoticed. But this mastermind is smuggling it out... in pieces. What do you got there, Photoshop? :D Like the whole thing wouldn't fit on the usb stick, so you have to do it in turns. Okay cmon, I'm on candid camera, who the hell would believe this?

It's based on a comic book, which in turn is based on a legend, right? One can image therefore it's targeted at fans of the comic. Well, there isn't much of a story involved, I supposed the attention span of the audience is estimated pretty low. I suspect a Pink Pather audience would already find the uni-dimensionality of this production disconcerting.

It's basically just a long action sequence. And the action is pretty artsy as they come, it's not meant to be realistic or anything like that, so the physical realities are comfortably ignored. They're fighting off all kinds of attacks, swinging their shields so fiercely that every impact with an enemy is like the collision between a semi trailer and a bicycle. They also use this Matrix-like technique where the action slows down and the Persian soldier is moving in slow motion, while the Spartan navigates the space/time continuum so he can swing his sword in real time during a slow motion sequence. No wonder they were so hard to defeat.

Of course, that being the case, the obvious question is why didn't the Persians just drop some rocks on them? Where were their catapults? Would have trampled the Spartans easily without much effort.

Xerxes called himself a god (there's actually some substance to that claim, there is an xml library in his name, meanwhile Leonidis has no such legacy), but the Spartans were actually more like gods. For starters, they never wore anything over their underwear. I suppose the Greek climate is nice and comfy, but even so you would expect some manner of unkind weather. Then they never ate or slept, and could fight 24/7. And they had no logistics, no supplies of weapons, soldiers, or provisions. Obviously they were no gods, though, no god would be stupid enough to reject the offer to become warlord of all Greece and avoid certain death.

But there are many other curiosities. For instance, why did the Persians make their landing in a place where the Spartans found their ideal strategic position? X marks the spot, right? So the most convenient landing would probably the red arrow. And suppose from that point the only road to Sparta leads through that narrow canyon the Spartans enjoy so much. Well we already saw how the Persians have a gazillion ships, so how about trying some other approaches? I suggest the green arrows, those put you at a proximity to Sparta.

The ending is also very puzzling. Once Leonidis's troops are wiped out, with the promise of Persian massacre onto Sparta, we somehow move one year ahead, Sparta now has found and trained 30,000 troops while escaping extinction. Pink Panther fans are surely shaking their heads.

So yeah, there were some nice artistic images in this movie. A lot of interesting Photoshop-like art, especially in terms of landscapes, skyscapes and lighting effects. Very odd movie, I'd much prefer one about my childhood comic book action hero, the Phantom.

It's always unpredictable when an idea is developed literally to see just how it will be interpreted. Fahrenheit 451's literalism really goes a long way, and eventually to the point where it becomes silly. But it's an interesting plot all the same.

If you've familiarized yourself with 1984 or any derivative thereof (like Equilibrium), you will find yourself right at home. It's hard to know to what extent Ray Bradbury's vision was recreated faithfully, but the odd thing here is the lack of a totalitarian regime. The one authority we relate to is the Fire Department, whose function it is to burn books. The rationale is that books make people unhappy, and therefore they must be destroyed. Mkay.

From 1984 they reused the tv concept, as a propaganda delivery device (not terribly far fetched in our world anyhow). This is also the only reference to a regime in the plot, where they call the nation a family and citizens cousins. But the tvs do not spy on people. 1984 is truly totalitarian in how every aspect of life is controlled. Here it's just the books they don't like. They bring in the owners to be questioned, but there is no sense of torture or death row punishment for the offense.

The culmination of rebellion, is the notion that every person who loves books picks one and commits it entirely to memory. So that instead of *having* the book they *know* the book. This is where the literalism runs wild. They even take it as far as if a book is published in two volumes then two people will learn it and each recite one volume. This idea is put into practice in a pretty odd way, as we just see people wandering around the woods reciting books without much concern for where they are spending the night or how they plan to feed themselves. I can't say that I see the immediate benefit of this lifestyle. After all it's not the literal content of books that is useful, it is the wisdom.

I get the feeling that Bradbury was much in awe of Orwell and decided not to push the envelope here. Orwell's society is masterfully crafted, whereas Bradbury seems to have limited himself to some reasonable subset without trying to connect as many dots. Of course, one can ask oneself whether topping Orwell is even possible. But not trying obviously won't get you there.

An interesting story, but a bit half baked.

It's one thing to put Vin Diesel in an extremely explosive action movie with a lousy plot. He may not look much like a field agent, but he is rough and he's definitely crazy enough to do anything. But Ice Cube as a marine takes the cake. :D

If you're looking for some mindless action, this is a fun movie. The whole time I'm expecting Ice Cube to start rapping, but somehow he resists the urge. :D Instead he's shooting guns, jumping, running, fighting, all rather clumsily. And he's not very bright for an agent, none of his sentences are longer than 7 words, none of the words more than 3 syllables, it's such a spectacle. :D

His foe is played by Willem Dafoe, who really isn't a good actor at all. He's the typical minor part actor you've seen in a ton of mediocre parts, so his lead role is somewhat surprising. Then again, Ice Cube.. :D

The opening sequence tells you all about what kind of movie this is. A squad of professional killers breaks into a super secret NSA facility.... underneath a farm. :D Samuel L. Jackson, who regrettably doesn't play a big role, is the only one to make it out alive in a modded hot rod, along with his geek-of-the-movie companion. Whom I have to say is a breath of fresh from the typical geek, he's not a teenager, he doesn't talk in puns, and he wears a flannel shirt. :D

Then they go to pick up Ice Cube, who of course, is in jail. :D After a break neck escape he jumps off a roof... grabbing onto the chopper piloted by Sammy. A poetic move. :star: Then they go get some wheels, where Ice Cube unveils the most ridiculous ride ever, a truck the height of two cars. :D Well you can imagine how this movie unfolds...

Don't miss the hilarious scene where Ice Cube and his band of thugs break into a tank and cruise to the White House in it. :cool:

"Did the president of the United States just quote 2 Pac?" :howler:

As we all know, Die Hard with a vengeance was probably the best action movie of all time. So it's a lot to live up to. Unfortunately, Die Hard 4 falls at the first fence.

As I'm watching the opening sequence I can't even believe that it *is* Die Hard, thought maybe it was trailer. But then the title comes up. Basically, this is not a Die Hard movie. These people have no idea what they're doing. Die Hard is about a band of armed robbers with an ingenious plot to steal a ton of money. It's not a disaster movie, and it's not a computer cracker movie. Half an hour into it I was thinking enough with the computer crap, already!

And I wasn't the only one, every 15 minutes John McClane was asking wtf is going on, he had no idea. I mean the whole point of Die Hard is for John McClane, a clever cop cut way above the dumb-cops stereotype to overturn the plot. But he had no clue what was going on here. If McClane can't figure it out, there's something very wrong with the story.

This movie is a story about computer crime retrofitted with John McClane.

The story isn't terrible, it has its merits. I think it's a quite acceptable computer-terrorist-takeover plot as they come. But since they call it Die Hard I'm going to continue discussing it on that premise. So let's focus on the bright points, cause we need to savor them.

Bruce Willis is indeed a bit gray haired for this role. But considering how estranged he is from the plot, he does a decent job. Basically he's the best feature this movie has. His cracker/stoner companion starts off very lame, but he comes along.

But now let me ask this. Did they not have any money for this movie? The casting is like a who's who of bad actors. Bowman is the worst FBI director of any movie ever. He's completely clueless, gutless, and worthless. He has no idea what's going on, and absolutely no concept of what to do. Then there's the villain Thomas Gabriel. Now if you know anything about Die Hard, you know that the whole success of the story is predicated upon a great bad guy. Simon Guber (Jeremy Irons) was a *genius* in Die Hard with a vengeance, he made the story a success. Thomas Gabriel, meanwhile, is a puny security expert gone loco with a plot to steal billions of dollars. If Bowman is the least convincing character, Gabriel Thomas is a close second. Guber was a psycho, Gabriel cries on the phone when he finds out his girlfriend is dead. This is supposed to be a Die Hard villain? He looks more like an insurance salesman.

Then there's Mai, Gabriel's right hand. How relieved was I when she was killed. It's like a contest of who can make the worst fit for their role. Then there's Gabriel's squad of French/Italian terrorists/crackers/soldiers. This is a very odd mix of outsourced personnel, they don't even speak English. Consequently they don't have any terrible lines either, so perhaps that's a plus. Cyril Raffaelli does a decent job with the parkour, but frankly if you want to see coolass parkour, you'll go see Banlieue 13, which is much better at that.

The action sequences are for the most part terribly misguided. Here's the thing: if you want to do an action sequence, you have to build up the plot first, so that it culminates into the action. In Die Hard 4 you just have a lot of very random action bits. Like the car falling into the elevator shaft - Jurassic Park already did that several times with a bus, enough already. Then there's the helicopter-assassinated-by-car idea, which is beyond ludicrous. Apparently a speeding car hitting a toll booth is supposed to elevate some 30m right into a chopper of killers. Can't you at least try to make it believable? The most complicated action sequence must be the fighter-jet-hunting-a-semitrailer. And it's not really that bad, it's just that you have to somehow buy the story to enjoy it, which is unlikely. Also, it's high time for Hollywood to stop telling us that you can drive a car at high speed and come to an instant stop without a scratch. No one is buying it.

I also don't buy the soldier/cracker idea. We've all seen so many action movies with terrorists where you have these really big chunks of muscles, expert with weapons and combat. But in this movie, they try to make them computer experts too, which isn't convincing.

Also, why are crackers always so shy and timid? Trey is Gabriel's geek-who-makes-it-all-possible friend, and he's like every cracker in every terrorist movie, full of scruples and hesitation. Theo, from the first Die Hard, was much better - he was actually evil. Sure he didn't kill anyone, but it didn't deter him either. He even tried to make away with the money when everyone else was taken out of action.

Saving grace that he is, John McClane struggles to fit into this plot. In Die Hard with a vengeance, he fought the bad guys, but he was just trying to catch them. In Die Hard 4 he actually announces his intention to "kill them all". This is not the John McClane we know.

A surprisingly well kept secret is that it's the story that drives a good action movie. That is why Die Hard with a vengeance was a masterpiece. If not, it's just boring combat and shooting. A fact lost on this guy and the 44,517 people on imdb.com. This review gets it right:

Boring characters, crappy script, interesting fight scenes. But fight scenes never make a movie. The worst die hard in my opinion, even worse than die hard 2. At least die hard 1 and 3 had interesting tutonic villianry.

At the end of the day, it's not such a terrible movie, it's just not Die Hard. Which is a shame, considering what they advertise on the movie poster. If they didn't do that, it would be a much quieter movie, with a fraction of the people come to see it, and they'd probably be more satisfied than those of us who wanted a Die Hard movie.