![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
inmyriadbitsMy older sister Emma came home over last weekend. It's her birthday this Friday, so we had early birthday/MCAT score/internship celebrations for her--fed her dinner, baked her Italian cream cake, and let her veg out by watching all but two episodes of Heroes S1. It's really weird rewatching that show when you know what's going to happen.
I did sadly miss the Sports Night Chat for![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
sportsnightglee; I had insomnia and two hours of sleep Thursday night, so I crashed early on Friday, overslept, and then Emma came into town. :( Oh, well. Next time!
However, my fangirly heart was made happy, quite unexpectedly, by Live Free Or Die Hard, of all things. No, really. It was totally and completely awesome; Katie and I spent the rest of the afternoon gleeking about it, and we don't do that for just anything. (As a matter of fact, we even went back to see it again tonight, less than a week after our first viewing, and then continued to geek out about it.)
[Note: I've managed to avoid any uncut spoilers beyond what could be seen in the trailer, or what would come out in conversation if I was trying to sell you on going to see it with me (I am very vague about these things), so feel free to read even if you haven't seen the movie. Also, sorry for not cutting for length, but I'm trying to pimp. *pimp pimp*]
It probably helped that I had low expectations, since the trailer screamed "Great action; desperate comeback of aging action star" and "more 'US vs. terrorists' wank" and "damsel-in-distress hostage situation" to me. I have never been so pleasantly proven wrong (except maybe by the first Pirates movie).
To start detailing how I was mistaken, I would like to apologize to Bruce Willis for ever thinking he was an aging action star desperate for a comeback. You still effortlessly kick ass, Mr. Willis. I was so wrong. Second, the terrorist plotline was actually a clever twist on a terrorist threat because the bad guys were former good guys trying to prove a point to the government in a violent and self-righteous manner; the villains were competent, intelligent, and provided with motivation that made sense. This is vitally important, IMO--you can't have a really great hero without a really cool villain (example: Darth Vader=awesome, Darth Maul=not so much; Luke Skywalker=legendary, and--whoeverthefuck was Darth Maul actually supposed to be after? I forget. So, that's pretty pathetic. The Emperor was pretty cool, but his absence in Episode 1 greatly contributed to the badness). If the bad guy is lame, the hero winning isn't nearly as much fun or as effective. Third, John McClane's daughter is a hostage, but she has just about as much agency as you can possibly have as a hostage. I really liked her. Especially when she does stuff like tell her dad how many bad guys are left or tell Matt to grow a pair. His snarking back was also awesome, though. But I'll get to him in a minute.
I really ask two things of a movie: that it tells a good story, and that it tells it well. The "good" part, of course, allows for a whole range of qualitative assessment, but I'm pretty easy. I base my evaluation a lot on genre going in, but re-evaluate at the end based on what it seems the movie was trying to achieve. If they do what they were trying to do, that makes it good. In this particular case, LFoDH is an action movie. If the pirate genre is about freedom, the action genre at its best is about heroism. Obstacles and conflicts are transformed into primarily physical obstacles and conflicts, and are overcome by the hero in a dramatic show of perseverance and strength. There's something to fight for or against, or something to save.
This can be a bit problematic in certain ways (perpetuation of an uber-American individualism, for one; disposal of subtlety, for another), but if it's done well, it can be inspiring. Take most of the comic book hero movies, for example, which are also action films. There's are reasons Superman moves us, and it's not because of his rippling muscles or tight-clad rear. He never gives up, and he fights for principles even more steely than his muscles, because kryptonite can't touch them. That's what makes him a hero; the rest is window dressing.
Anyway, my point is that Live Free Or Die Hard was one of the best pure action movies I've seen in a really, really long time. I actually like it better than the original Die Hard in a lot of ways (I know, blasphemy!), for a lot of reasons.
Reason 1: I fucking love the sidekick character. Like, seriously. I have a huge crush on him, besides my intellectual love for his role in the movie. If there's one thing John McClane needed, it was a foil, and this guy brought it in spades. McClane needed a tech-savvy partner to bring him out of the 80's, and he's much more fun with someone to bounce off of. They brought that in a bit with the beat cop Al in Die Hard, but to a lesser degree. I absolutely hated his dynamic with Samuel L. Jackson's character in Die Hard With A Vengeance, and he was pretty much on his own in Die Hard 2. So LFoDH had that, which gives it major points. John McClane in this was more human than he's been in any of the previous movies, which I credit a lot to the sidekick dynamic. They were complementary in pretty much every way: humor (Matt is snarky and a little goofy; John is dry and deadpan), style (sneaky and techy vs. blunt and blunt-objects), age, etc. It brought balance, breadth, and dynamism where it used to be just John McClane, badass loner who blows shit up well. I also have to give props to the actor playing Matt (for other things than being cute, which he was: geeky-cute, smart, sarcastic and snarky, pretty eyes, great smile, lean build, tiny scar between his eyebrows, slightly emo hair, a little scruffy, nice hands, YUM), and believe me, I'm shocked to be complimenting the Mac Guy on his acting skills. He walked that very fine line to avoid being That Whiny Guy Who Complains The Whole Movie; he pulls it off instead as Likeable Normal Guy Not Used To Being Shot At And Reacting Like A Sane Person Would without being a wimp, which is exactly as it should be. Seriously, I loved the character a LOT.
Reason 2: The surprisingly non-anvil-like discussion of heroism. Again, the hero-sidekick balancing act comes into play very effectively here. We have McClane on the one hand, who already has this stuff down pat, so things like him killing a helicopter with a car early-ish in the movie comes off as believable. This is good for pure entertainment and suspense value, because you don't have to build up to the hero being awesome. However, with Matt also in the picture, you get the other side of things. Real heroism doesn't mean blowing shit up or shooting lots of people; it's about being ass-deep in trouble and doing what's right, what has to be done, because you can when no one else can. It's about stepping up. The rest is, again, window dressing and entertainment. Matt is important because he's that normal guy shoved into the mess to sink or swim, and over the course of the movie, we get to see him start choosing to swim. It's pretty subtly done, too; the couple of times heroism comes up explicitly in conversation, it feels utterly natural. That's hard to do. And then they back it up with actual situations in the plot that support the development of the theme, and I develop an intellectual crush on whoever was responsible.
Reason 3: The plot. It was tightly written, without really any extraneous flabby bits of script. The motivations make sense, the detail continuity is excellent, it's smart, and there's, like, character arcs. I didn't once think "Wow, that was contrived," which is rare occurrence in action movies. Okay, sometimes I thought "Wow, him surviving that was unrealistic," but I can roll with suspension of disbelief better than bad pacing and pointless scenes. Speaking of the action...
Reason 4: Action sequences! Let's face it; most of the time, you go to an action movie looking for cool explosions and maybe a car chase. This had a pretty amazing variety of your standard selection: car chases, lots of explosions, helicopters, a jet plane, people with guns held to their heads, shootouts, martial arts and old school fistfights, lots of wanton property destruction, etc. They played a lot of twists on old standards, which was excellent fun. It kept predictability a non-factor and upped the ante most of the time. Pretty damn cool.
There are lots of other little things I liked, such as just the right amount of sly nods to earlier movies in the series; enough to reward a fan, not so much as to be tiresome or recycle material instead of working for new laughs (*coughPirates2cough*). Ooh, that's another thing--fun banter, both sidekick-hero joking and hero-villain taunting. McClane's had a lot of practice on the latter, and he's really quite good at it. This was really the first time McClane got pulled into a fight not because of bad timing and a personal stake in events (his wife in danger in 1 and 2, personal vendetta in 3), but because of a little bad luck and a whole lot of personal integrity. He stick with things because it's his duty as a cop and because he has to do what he believes is right. I really liked that. His daughter gets dragged in , so we get the infamous McClane family protectiveness, but it's not his primary reason until much later. ETA: I forgot to mention, excellent inclusion of Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son," which I love. :D
I think I better cut myself off here. For those who have seen it, do you agree, or think I'm completely insane?
I did sadly miss the Sports Night Chat for
sportsnightglee; I had insomnia and two hours of sleep Thursday night, so I crashed early on Friday, overslept, and then Emma came into town. :( Oh, well. Next time!However, my fangirly heart was made happy, quite unexpectedly, by Live Free Or Die Hard, of all things. No, really. It was totally and completely awesome; Katie and I spent the rest of the afternoon gleeking about it, and we don't do that for just anything. (As a matter of fact, we even went back to see it again tonight, less than a week after our first viewing, and then continued to geek out about it.)
[Note: I've managed to avoid any uncut spoilers beyond what could be seen in the trailer, or what would come out in conversation if I was trying to sell you on going to see it with me (I am very vague about these things), so feel free to read even if you haven't seen the movie. Also, sorry for not cutting for length, but I'm trying to pimp. *pimp pimp*]
It probably helped that I had low expectations, since the trailer screamed "Great action; desperate comeback of aging action star" and "more 'US vs. terrorists' wank" and "damsel-in-distress hostage situation" to me. I have never been so pleasantly proven wrong (except maybe by the first Pirates movie).
To start detailing how I was mistaken, I would like to apologize to Bruce Willis for ever thinking he was an aging action star desperate for a comeback. You still effortlessly kick ass, Mr. Willis. I was so wrong. Second, the terrorist plotline was actually a clever twist on a terrorist threat because the bad guys were former good guys trying to prove a point to the government in a violent and self-righteous manner; the villains were competent, intelligent, and provided with motivation that made sense. This is vitally important, IMO--you can't have a really great hero without a really cool villain (example: Darth Vader=awesome, Darth Maul=not so much; Luke Skywalker=legendary, and--whoeverthefuck was Darth Maul actually supposed to be after? I forget. So, that's pretty pathetic. The Emperor was pretty cool, but his absence in Episode 1 greatly contributed to the badness). If the bad guy is lame, the hero winning isn't nearly as much fun or as effective. Third, John McClane's daughter is a hostage, but she has just about as much agency as you can possibly have as a hostage. I really liked her. Especially when she does stuff like tell her dad how many bad guys are left or tell Matt to grow a pair. His snarking back was also awesome, though. But I'll get to him in a minute.
I really ask two things of a movie: that it tells a good story, and that it tells it well. The "good" part, of course, allows for a whole range of qualitative assessment, but I'm pretty easy. I base my evaluation a lot on genre going in, but re-evaluate at the end based on what it seems the movie was trying to achieve. If they do what they were trying to do, that makes it good. In this particular case, LFoDH is an action movie. If the pirate genre is about freedom, the action genre at its best is about heroism. Obstacles and conflicts are transformed into primarily physical obstacles and conflicts, and are overcome by the hero in a dramatic show of perseverance and strength. There's something to fight for or against, or something to save.
This can be a bit problematic in certain ways (perpetuation of an uber-American individualism, for one; disposal of subtlety, for another), but if it's done well, it can be inspiring. Take most of the comic book hero movies, for example, which are also action films. There's are reasons Superman moves us, and it's not because of his rippling muscles or tight-clad rear. He never gives up, and he fights for principles even more steely than his muscles, because kryptonite can't touch them. That's what makes him a hero; the rest is window dressing.
Anyway, my point is that Live Free Or Die Hard was one of the best pure action movies I've seen in a really, really long time. I actually like it better than the original Die Hard in a lot of ways (I know, blasphemy!), for a lot of reasons.
Reason 1: I fucking love the sidekick character. Like, seriously. I have a huge crush on him, besides my intellectual love for his role in the movie. If there's one thing John McClane needed, it was a foil, and this guy brought it in spades. McClane needed a tech-savvy partner to bring him out of the 80's, and he's much more fun with someone to bounce off of. They brought that in a bit with the beat cop Al in Die Hard, but to a lesser degree. I absolutely hated his dynamic with Samuel L. Jackson's character in Die Hard With A Vengeance, and he was pretty much on his own in Die Hard 2. So LFoDH had that, which gives it major points. John McClane in this was more human than he's been in any of the previous movies, which I credit a lot to the sidekick dynamic. They were complementary in pretty much every way: humor (Matt is snarky and a little goofy; John is dry and deadpan), style (sneaky and techy vs. blunt and blunt-objects), age, etc. It brought balance, breadth, and dynamism where it used to be just John McClane, badass loner who blows shit up well. I also have to give props to the actor playing Matt (for other things than being cute, which he was: geeky-cute, smart, sarcastic and snarky, pretty eyes, great smile, lean build, tiny scar between his eyebrows, slightly emo hair, a little scruffy, nice hands, YUM), and believe me, I'm shocked to be complimenting the Mac Guy on his acting skills. He walked that very fine line to avoid being That Whiny Guy Who Complains The Whole Movie; he pulls it off instead as Likeable Normal Guy Not Used To Being Shot At And Reacting Like A Sane Person Would without being a wimp, which is exactly as it should be. Seriously, I loved the character a LOT.
Reason 2: The surprisingly non-anvil-like discussion of heroism. Again, the hero-sidekick balancing act comes into play very effectively here. We have McClane on the one hand, who already has this stuff down pat, so things like him killing a helicopter with a car early-ish in the movie comes off as believable. This is good for pure entertainment and suspense value, because you don't have to build up to the hero being awesome. However, with Matt also in the picture, you get the other side of things. Real heroism doesn't mean blowing shit up or shooting lots of people; it's about being ass-deep in trouble and doing what's right, what has to be done, because you can when no one else can. It's about stepping up. The rest is, again, window dressing and entertainment. Matt is important because he's that normal guy shoved into the mess to sink or swim, and over the course of the movie, we get to see him start choosing to swim. It's pretty subtly done, too; the couple of times heroism comes up explicitly in conversation, it feels utterly natural. That's hard to do. And then they back it up with actual situations in the plot that support the development of the theme, and I develop an intellectual crush on whoever was responsible.
Reason 3: The plot. It was tightly written, without really any extraneous flabby bits of script. The motivations make sense, the detail continuity is excellent, it's smart, and there's, like, character arcs. I didn't once think "Wow, that was contrived," which is rare occurrence in action movies. Okay, sometimes I thought "Wow, him surviving that was unrealistic," but I can roll with suspension of disbelief better than bad pacing and pointless scenes. Speaking of the action...
Reason 4: Action sequences! Let's face it; most of the time, you go to an action movie looking for cool explosions and maybe a car chase. This had a pretty amazing variety of your standard selection: car chases, lots of explosions, helicopters, a jet plane, people with guns held to their heads, shootouts, martial arts and old school fistfights, lots of wanton property destruction, etc. They played a lot of twists on old standards, which was excellent fun. It kept predictability a non-factor and upped the ante most of the time. Pretty damn cool.
There are lots of other little things I liked, such as just the right amount of sly nods to earlier movies in the series; enough to reward a fan, not so much as to be tiresome or recycle material instead of working for new laughs (*coughPirates2cough*). Ooh, that's another thing--fun banter, both sidekick-hero joking and hero-villain taunting. McClane's had a lot of practice on the latter, and he's really quite good at it. This was really the first time McClane got pulled into a fight not because of bad timing and a personal stake in events (his wife in danger in 1 and 2, personal vendetta in 3), but because of a little bad luck and a whole lot of personal integrity. He stick with things because it's his duty as a cop and because he has to do what he believes is right. I really liked that. His daughter gets dragged in , so we get the infamous McClane family protectiveness, but it's not his primary reason until much later. ETA: I forgot to mention, excellent inclusion of Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son," which I love. :D
I think I better cut myself off here. For those who have seen it, do you agree, or think I'm completely insane?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-06 12:36 pm (UTC)Well, I haven't seen it yet, but you've convinced me to bump it up the list!
:)
Jaydeyn
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-07 06:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-10 03:15 am (UTC)It's so blasphemous though, because I love the Die Hard movies, and because John McClane is the manliest man who ever did man.
But... It was there. You know?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-10 04:34 am (UTC)I think the sheer manliness of John McClane is indeed what shorted out my slash goggles, but they're working now! It's so there. (And it takes a real man to kiss other men, dontcha know. Plus, all that testosterone just means more wall-slamming, and I am totally in favor of that.) :) I'm thinking now about the way he looks at Matt after the OnStar thing, sort of admiring and fond and warm. Oh, yeah. And the bit at the end, when Matt's all goofy and adorkable and talking to John. :D
Although, I kinda ship Matt/Lucy just a little, even though I'm not sure it wouldn't end in a small disaster. Maybe I just want Matt to get some. He's THAT cute. :D
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-10 12:27 pm (UTC)The thing about Matt/Lucy is that no matter how much it is implied at the end of the movie, canon already establishes that:
1. Normal relationships never work out for Hero-types like John (And now like Matt)
2. Lucy is just John with boobs, except when she is her Mom with boobs.
3. Even after Matt saved his life/his daughters life/America John still doesn't approve of Matt/Lucy. I'm thinking this is more than just a protective father thing.
4. John knew Matt was gay from the moment he met him, when he rudely made a joke about the lack of ladies in Matt's life.
And yes, there would be wall slamming. Matt would be oh so confused, and John would be oh so sure.
Sorry. I went out searching for a fandom for these two and have found naught. I think it's because of the slash-gogle deactivation field that John McClane gives off...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 03:53 am (UTC)And yes, there would be wall slamming. Matt would be oh so confused, and John would be oh so sure.
I was thinking more "Matt would be oh so turned on," but whatever. :) Really, the wall-slamming is what's important. I'm a big fan of wall-slamming. *cough*
All I've found for the fandom is