Movie Previews I Saw Today (Paging Jason Evans)

[sue71, esq]

I admit I don't go to the movies often- it's been several months at least since I've been. Today I went, and I saw two previews I have questions about. Jason (or anyone in the know), I'm wondering if you know anything about these...

First, the preview for The Great Gatsby looks a-ma-zing. Seriously I wanted to see it right then & there. What's the buzz on this?

Also, in a preview for the new Die Hard, Bruce Willis says "The 007 of Plainfield, NJ." Is that where the movie is set? I about fell out of my chair since I grew up about 3 towns over.

Just curious. Thanks :)

[davekay1971]

I admit I don't go to the movies often- it's been several months at least since I've been. Today I went, and I saw two previews I have questions about. Jason (or anyone in the know), I'm wondering if you know anything about these...

First, the preview for The Great Gatsby looks a-ma-zing. Seriously I wanted to see it right then & there. What's the buzz on this?

Also, in a preview for the new Die Hard, Bruce Willis says "The 007 of Plainfield, NJ." Is that where the movie is set? I about fell out of my chair since I grew up about 3 towns over.

Just curious. Thanks :)

Die Hard V: A Good Day to Die Hard (that may actually be the formal title...) is set in Russia (specifically Moscow, I think). I think John McClain is talking about his son when he says that line, who is from Plainfield, NJ, and has grown up to be a CIA agent working in Moscow. Given the tone of voice, I assume John's picking on his son when he calls him that.

[sue71, esq]

Die Hard V: A Good Day to Die Hard (that may actually be the formal title...) is set in Russia (specifically Moscow, I think). I think John McClain is talking about his son when he says that line, who is from Plainfield, NJ, and has grown up to be a CIA agent working in Moscow. Given the tone of voice, I assume John's picking on his son when he calls him that.

Thanks for the info. Picking on NJ. Surprise. ;)

Though to be fair, it IS Plainfield.

[Olympic Fan]

As a big fan of the Die Hard series, I'm pumped for the latest installment.

The trailers I've seen have been outstanding ...

[JasonEvans]

The buzz on Gatsby is mixed. The trailer does look wondrous and the film is by Baz Luhrmann, who is known for impressive visual style. He takes a loong time planing his films. He made Australia in 2008 (massive in scope but a bit thin in plot) and Moulin Rouge in 2001. From the trailer and Luhrmann's reputation, there is little question the film will look incredibly flashy and arresting on screen.

But, Luhrmann is not known for plot and Gatsby is not exactly a simple story to tell. I worry that Luhrmann will spend all his energy on the sets and the spectacle and not give us the kind of characters that make Gatsby one of the great American stories.

Gatsby was originally supposed to be released in December -- there was talk of a Dec 25th release that would have put it alongside Django and Les Mis -- but the studio said production was running behind so they moved it to May. There is a good bit of speculation in Hollywood that the real reason for the movie is that the film was not a likely Oscar contender and would get buried by Les Mis (which would seem to have a similar audience) so they moved to the more popcorn-audience time of year, the summer. Also, there was concern that DiCaprio would be starring in two movies released on the same day (Django and Gatsby) which could cause further audience confusion.

But, no one has seen Gatsby yet and it could be outstanding. It is simply too early to tell.

As for Die Hard 5, I am seeing a screening next Tuesday and can report back then. It has not been screened yet so there is not much buzz. The trailer does look solid in terms of action, but I am really worried because it is directed by John Moore. Moore did Pitch Black, which gave us the Riddick character, back in 2000 but everything he has done since then has been pretty bad (Max Payne, The Omen remake, Flight of the Phoenix, Behind Enemy Lines). Skip Woods, the screenwriter on this film, also wrote Swordfish and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, two pretty poorly written films. So, other than the fact that it is Bruce Willis as John McLane, there is nothing about this film that makes me think it will be good. Also, it is getting an early February release. If this was a good film, the studio would be putting it out there in the summer, like all 4 of the previous Die Hard films. The release date really makes me think this is a stinker.

--Jason "sorry to be the bearer of potentially bad news... just telling it like I see it" Evans

[davekay1971]

Moore did Pitch Black, which gave us the Riddick character, back in 2000 but everything he has done since then has been pretty bad (Max Payne, The Omen remake, Flight of the Phoenix, Behind Enemy Lines). Skip Woods, the screenwriter on this film, also wrote Swordfish and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, two pretty poorly written films.

I have now given up all hope on this movie. Woods is the killer. Swordfish and X-Men Origins were two absolutely awful movies. Swordfish was written as if it was stream-of-consiousness from a 15 year old boy with ADHD and wayyyyyyy too much testosterone surging in his veins. It was crap, with the worst form of card-board cutout characters, plot motivations, and a horribly weak attempt at being clever. X-Men Origins, I was never sure if that was a bad idea from the Marvel studio offices or what. Wolverine had a pretty cool origin story already laid out in the comics, and the idioticy that made it on screen wasn't it. Knowing it was the same writer as Swordfish makes perfect sense now.

As for Moore, I got a little excited when you mentioned Pitch Black, which was a really neat idea with a great anti-hero character, though far from a perfect movie...then I looked up Moore on IMDB and didn't see Pitch Black connected anywhere with his name. David Twohy directed it and he and the Wheat brothers wrote it, according to the website. You know more Hollywood than I do, by a long shot, so I'll believe you over IMDB...but, at least according to that website, the best thing I saw to Moore's credit was Behind Enemy Lines which was...okay.

[Blue in the Face]

As for Die Hard 5, I am seeing a screening next Tuesday and can report back then. It has not been screened yet so there is not much buzz. The trailer does look solid in terms of action, but I am really worried because it is directed by John Moore. Moore did Pitch Black, which gave us the Riddick character, back in 2000 but everything he has done since then has been pretty bad (Max Payne, The Omen remake, Flight of the Phoenix, Behind Enemy Lines).
Are you sure about that? I think Behind Enemy Lines was his first film. (There's an actor named John Moore in Pitch Black, but that's not this guy).

ETA - or what davekay said.

[JasonEvans]

Are you sure about that? I think Behind Enemy Lines was his first film. (There's an actor named John Moore in Pitch Black, but that's not this guy).

ETA - or what davekay said.

My bad. I trusted the wrong source. This director had nothing to do with Pitch Black. All his films are barely mediocre.

-Jason "I am shocked Moore got more work after Max Payne, that was a truly horrid movie" Evans

[Jim3k]

As a big fan of the Die Hard series, I'm pumped for the latest installment.

The trailers I've seen have been outstanding ...

As a fan of raw adventures, you'll like Parker.

[Olympic Fan]

As a fan of raw adventures, you'll like Parker.

I don't see the parallel.

In my eyes, the reviews for Parker make it look like one of the most unappealing films in recent years. At its heart is an actor I have never liked.

In other word, I have zero interest in seeing Parker.

It's not that I love "raw adventures" ... but with the Die Hard series, I love the blend on action and humor that it's been able to maintain. I love the character of John McClane that Willis has created. Intereting to me that he was a lone wolf in his first two films, but that in his last two -- and apparently this one -- h's been teamed with some very different partners (Samuel L/ Jackson and Justin Long).

I admit that Jason has scared me with his reservations about the new director and actor. But like Coach K sending Hariston back in a game after a bad half because he had built up a resevoir of trust, I'll give the new Die Hard a look when it arrives.

[Jim3k]

I don't see the parallel.

In my eyes, the reviews for Parker make it look like one of the most unappealing films in recent years. At its heart is an actor I have never liked.

In other word, I have zero interest in seeing Parker.

It's not that I love "raw adventures" ... but with the Die Hard series, I love the blend on action and humor that it's been able to maintain. I love the character of John McClane that Willis has created. Intereting to me that he was a lone wolf in his first two films, but that in his last two -- and apparently this one -- h's been teamed with some very different partners (Samuel L/ Jackson and Justin Long).

I admit that Jason has scared me with his reservations about the new director and actor. But like Coach K sending Hariston back in a game after a bad half because he had built up a resevoir of trust, I'll give the new Die Hard a look when it arrives.

Hey, I tried. ;) Who ya gonna believe? Me or your own eyes? :confused: IMDB gives it 6.2 and the RT audience-rating gives it 62% while the critics don't like it at all. The mileage seems to vary, normal for a shoot 'em up flick.

Parker blends humor with action, too, but levity is not the best basis to best judge an action movie. In comparison, I can take or leave the Die Hard stuff. To me, Willis has squeezed the McClane lemon dry, but I'll probably see the new one.