Wednesday

Unfortunately, I went to the pub last night instead of seeing a film. I will try again tonight, but you never know what might happen. Anyway, Alex asked me what Die Hard film was the worst if it wasn't Die Hard 2. My answer has to be: Die Hard 2. This may not make much sense to you, and it doesn't to me either, but here's my explanation: I don't think we should rank them. I think Die Hard 2 is just as good as the other films. If you were compelled to rate them, it marginally loses out, but calling it the 'worst' makes it seem bad. I've been watching Die Hard: With a Vengeance now, and I'm wondering if even that can be called a Die Hard film. It's a good fun movie, but does it make the cut for the franchise? Most of my enjoyment comes from the interaction between Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, but isn't John McClane supposed to work alone? Of course, the only definite aspect of the franchise is that character, so it shouldn't matter what he's doing and who he's doing it with, but I felt something was wrong. The really striking thing about this film, though, is the handheld camerawork that makes it seem so much more alive, fluid, and real than its prequels (and sequel), and most other action movies. What's also interesting is that it starts without any perceptible build up. We're suddenly into the action, and the first time we meet McClane he's already wearing just a vest.