Live Free or Die Hard

Starring Bruce Willis, Justin Long, Timothy Olyphant, Maggie Q, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Directed by Len Wiseman

Summary
This installment of Die Hard revolves around cyber-terrorism, as terrorists, led by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) initiate a "fire-sale," stripping the U.S. of all its computer-run resources. The country is thrown into chaos.
John McClane ends up involved because he is sent to pick up a hacker named Matthew Farrell (Justin Long, the Mac guy from the Mac/PC commercials) after the computers begin to malfunction. Immediately John and Matthew are catapulted into action, and the action does not let up throughout the movie as McClane once again follows his instincts and tracks down the bad guys.

Review
I am a fan of the Die Hard movies. I think all three previous installments were great. This one did not disappoint. Strangely it was PG-13 and this was mostly due to a dramatic lessening of language. The action sequences, however, lived up to the previous three. An older McClane capably continued in his heroic acts, while being understandably not as durable. Justin Long was great as the buddy and provided good comic relief. Timothy Olyphant was passable as the bad guy. He did not live up to Alan Rickman (the original Die Hard villian) or Jeremy Irons (from Die Hard with a Vengeance), but he was still freaky and effective in his own way.
While this is an action movie, and while people's lives are at stake, it still comes off as a lot of fun, and it is. McClane never takes himself too seriously as he pursues saving the country (and his daughter).

Question for Thought
When we are thrust into a position in which we can choose to be a part of solving a problem, what do we do? Both McClane and Farrell find themselves capable of helping the country or saving themselves. Both make conscious choices to sacrifice for the common good. What opportunities do we pass up in order to protect ourselves and live comfortably?

Overall
John McClane or Jack Bauer? The fact that I even need to pause before answering (and my answer is John McClane <>) shows the high status of Bruce Willis' character among movie action heroes.
Again, this movie is not going to provide extremely profound topics for conversation, but it also is not mindless. It is a great, great action movie. It is part cop-buddy film, part computer-nerd-worst-case-scenario, and part swan song for John McClane. Really good. Die Hard fans should not be disappointed, nor should anyone who is looking for a good action flick.

Rating: 4 Stars out of 5 possible

Ocean's 13

Starring George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, Elliot Gould, Al Pacino, and Andy Garcia
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Summary
When Willie Bank (a Vegas hot shot played by Al Pacino) leaves Ruben (Elliot Gould) hung out to dry in a business deal, and causes him to drop into a semi-comatose state, Danny Ocean and the gang decide to intervene. Amazingly, all eleven return for this film in which the gang decides to ruin Bank's opening of his hotel-casino through an elaborate scam. After giving Banks the chance to do the right thing, the gang plots a scam that involves rigging slots, blackjack, craps, and even a hotel review. The plot ends up involving a factory in Mexico, a fake nose for Linus (Matt Damon), and even a partnership with Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia as the villain from Ocean's 11).

Review
Some people disliked Ocean's 12, but I thought it was fine, just not as great as Ocean's 11. However, I thought Ocean's 13 was at least as good as the original if not better. The movie was just a lot of fun to watch. The Mexico strand was hysterical (Senior Zapato). The Vegas scam was pretty ingenius. And they threw in some other gags that were great also. The movie had a great plot, but these movies are driven by the pure enjoyment of watching the characters interact with each other. In these movies, however, there is always the wrestling match. We wonder why we feel such a desire to root for Ocean's gang, when they themselves are professional criminals. Is it because they are so slick and funny? Is it because we believe that only corrupt people end up being hurt by their actions? I am not totally sure, but that would be a worthwhile question for another time.

Question for Thought
Who carried out justice? Is it up to us to make things right when someone does something that is wrong? How does our understanding of God's ultimate judgment impact the way we interact with injustice in this life?

Overall
As I said, fun movie. Very fun characters. Good fun plot. Memorable gags. Lots of fun to watch, with very little objectionable material.

Rating: 4 Stars out of 5 possible

Spiderman 3

Starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace.
Directed by Sam Raimi

Summary
The third in the installment of the webslinger is the most complicated for Peter/Spidey personally, and it is the most complicated of the three films in terms of intersecting villains. Peter Parker's best friend Harry Osborne has completed his journey to becoming his father's successor as The Green Goblin. He is out for revenge against Peter because he is still under the impression that Peter killed his father. All the while Peter finds out that the man who shot and killed his uncle has escaped from prison (it turns out that the man Peter thought killed his uncle was only an accomplice). This man, Flint Marko, is a misunderstood villain who becomes Sandman. Peter's heart is filled with a desire for revenge, and this darkness ends up taking him over and turning him into a dark Spiderman. However, the darkness is inside of Peter as well as on his suit, as he alienates friends (Mary Jane in particular) and finds a new energy that allows him to take revenge against those who wrong him. By the time Peter finally realizes the mess he has made, he finds that he needs to wage a hopeless battle against the combined forces of Sandman and Venom (who was created when Peter sheds his darkness).

Review
My summary actually may make the movie seem more complicated than it is. It is hard to talk about, but if you are watching it, it comes together much more smoothly. I love the Spiderman movies, and I enjoyed this one. I thought the strand of Peter being taken over by his dark desire for revenge was powerful. There was some comic relief that took place in this strand and some people really disliked that. I was okay with it. I thought it just reminded us all that this is a comic book story. The movie had some powerful things to say about revenge and the choices we make. I thought it fell a little short of really answering the questions it raised, but it went far enough that I was not left hanging. I also thought the actions sequences (especially the opening fight between Peter and Harry) was amazing.

Question for Thought
Spiderman movies are infamous for being very un-subtle with their messages. This one was no different. Revenge was the subject, and the message had to do with the fact that we always have to make the choice to do the right thing. An interesting question for thought is, "When we allow revenge and bitterness to become a part of our lives, how do these things impact other areas of our lives?" If we are honest with ourselves, we may be able to see just how detrimental it is when we allow a root of bitterness to grow.

Overall
While this was my least favorite of the three Spiderman movies, that must be qualified by the fact that I really loved the first two. I thought this one was good, not great. It was fun and worth seeing.

Rating: 3 Stars out of 5 possible