Live Free or Transform...Hard

As you may or may not have inferred from the title of this entry, I'll be doing a comparison of the two biggest films for this 4th of July holiday: Live Free or Die Hard and Transformers. I'm basing this idea from another site, but I'm going to add a few of my own categories to the mix and they'll face off to see who the ultimate summer movie is this year. Let's get ready to rumble!

Story:

Die Hard: John McClane returns to action as the country's infrastructure is threatened by a deranged ex-government employee. McClane, not exactly up to date with technology, uses the help of Matt Farrell, a computer hacker kid who is wanted by the government. An algorithm (or something) that Farrell created is being used by the compu-terrorists, and Farrell must use his knowledge to stop them before the entire country is relegated to the technological stone age. McClane must keep him alive and, later, save his daughter, who is taken hostage by the terrorists.

Transformers: Sam Witwicky is thrust into the mix of an interstellar war between the Autobots and the Decepticons in this highly anticipated fanboy film. When the Decepticons realize that Sam's great-great grandfather's glasses are the key to freeing their leader (Megatron) and taking over the universe, they crank it into gear to beat the Autobots to the punch. But Optimus Prime and his band of warriors won't take that sitting down: they must protect Sam long enough for him to grab the Allspark (a life-giving device from their home planet of Cybertron) and keep it out of Megatron's hands for good. All the while, Sam attempts to impress Mikaela Banes, a classmate of his that becomes embroiled in the carnage.

Normally, I would reward originality over a sequel any day of the week. However, in this case, I'm making an exception. Transformers is definitely more fresh, but originality can be called into question because the concept is based off the television show and animated movie in the 80's. LFoDH is by no means more original, itself a sequel to three previous films, but Live Free or Die Hard was a great sequel, and in this summer full of sequels gone bad, I'm going to say that's the most important aspect here.

Winner: Live Free or Die Hard

Actors:

Die Hard: Of course, we've got Bruce "The Grimace" Willis coming back as one of the most "wrong place, wrong time" action heroes ever, John McClane. He's stellar as usual, and this time he seems genuinely surprised at the fact that he can pull off near-physically-impossible feats, wowing at his own actions just as much as the audience does. Justin Long (Dodgeball, those "I'm a Mac" commercials) turns in a good performance as the young computer hacker, being the vessel the audience vicariously lives through to witness the ridiculous antics of McClane. And Timothy Olyphant (horribly miscast in the upcoming Hitman movie) is believably excellent as Thomas Gabriel, the miffed government worker bent on showing the U.S. a thing or two about their perceptions of national security.

Transformers: Don't get me wrong, I love Bruce Willis more than the next man. But there's no way that he and Timothy Olyphant can stand up to the bevy of talent assembled in Transformers. Jon Voight, Bernie Mac, Hugo Weaving, Tyrese Gibson, Shia LaBeouf, John Turturro, and Darius McCrary (Eddie Winslow from Family Matters) stand out as an ensemble cast that puts LFoDH to shame. Even though their performances weren't as iconic as Willis', the sheer numbers of big-name actors here give Transformers the win in this category.

Winner: Transformers

Realism:

Die Hard: I said it as soon as I left the theater - Live Free or Die Hard was more like a Transporter movie than a Die Hard movie, and I absolutely loved it for that. Realism was thrown out the window in favor of a fun summer movie that allowed John McClane to shine as an everyday superhero in a summer of larger-than-life webslingers and pirates. Ramping cars into helicopters, shooting fire extinguishers, rolling out of vehicles at high speeds, dangling in elevators shafts, jumping from exploding planes to concrete slabs, and more - all in a day's work for J-Mac.

Transformers: As ludicrous as McClane's actions may have been, there is no way that I'm going to say that Transformers is more realistic than LFoDH. Not gonna happen. Alien creatures that look like cars? Searching for a map engraved on a kid's great-great grandfather's glasses? And they find the kid through his eBay account? Come on. You expect me to believe that the Autobots have a perfect grasp on the English language because they absorbed it through the internet? Do you know how many typos are out there on the web? And don't even get me started on the scene where the Autobots were fully transformed into GIANT ROBOTS right outside Sam's house, crushing the garden and smashing lawn ornaments, and the parents didn't see or hear them at all. Also, I think the portrayal of the government's reactions to their respective situations was a lot more legit in Die Hard than Transformers, where the U.S. didn't even try to evacuate the city that was being completely destroyed by the Transformers at the end of the flick.

Winner: Live Free or Die Hard

Mentor Computer Geeks:

Die Hard: Kevin Smith plays the Warlock, a thirty-something-year-old man who lives in his mother's basement and is the mentor to Justin Long's Matt Farrell. Personally, I'm not a fan of these type of characters - the whole "middle-aged guy living in his mom's basement" thing wore out a long time ago. It's not really that funny anymore (Although Will Ferrell's character in Wedding Crashers did give it a glimmer of humor for a short while). Anyway, Kevin Smith is pretty much a nerd in real life, so this was some great casting and it was cool to see him and Bruce Willis act opposite each other on screen. Another key point is that Warlock actually DID SOMETHING to help our hero and his young compatriot at the end of the movie...he used the CB radio to contact Bowman to call the cavalry in to the warehouse.

Transformers: Anthony Anderson? Are you serious? What a joke. That man is the physical manifestation of the word "stereotype." He's been in some of the worst movies of the past fifteen years: Big Momma's House, See Spot Run, Kangaroo Jack, Exit Wounds AND Cradle 2 the Grave, Scary Movies 3 and 4, Agent Cody Banks 2, and King's Ransom just to name a few. Dis-mal. He plays Glenn, a hacker who lives with his grandmother (sigh) and plays Dance Dance Revolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but have you ever seen a black guy play DDR? I haven't. He utters the stereotypical token black phrases, and got a big laugh from the 7-15 age group in my theater during the scene where he "comically" eats donuts and gets interrogated. He also was barely capable of wiring the computer to produce Morse Code at the end, which wasn't really even that important anyway. All that did was send an air strike to the robot battle in the city, and those robots would have taken each other out anyway. Thousands of innocent people had already died, so it didn't really make that much of a difference. Actually the only thing that did was get the pilots of those planes killed by Megatron, so he was indirectly responsible for killing those soldiers instead of helping them. The only thing that makes me even consider giving this category to Transformers is the presence of Maggie Madsen, played by the Australian Rachael Taylor. Good looking and incredibly talented in the ways of hacking, she outwits the best of the best in the government and discovers the secret behind the attack in Quatar...it's not the Russians or the Chinese, but aliens. However, the complete lack of realism behind these events actually taking place coupled with the facts that Anthony Anderson is horrendous and Kevin Smith looks like he belongs in a basement gives the win to LFoDH.

Winner: Live Free or Die Hard

Hero:

Die Hard: Is this even an option? John McClane versus a robot that I have no history with? I grew up with John McClane - I know many of you watched the Transformers show (and animated movie) when you were growing up, but I wasn't one of those kids. Granted, I had some of the toys (Megatron was supposed to be a tank!), but I never religiously watched the show. The Die Hards, on the other hand, have been a staple of my movie-watching career ever since my parents deemed me old enough to feast my eyes on Nakatomi Plaza. This category (like most of them, I guess) is personal, and I'm going with what I know.

Transformers: Optimus Prime is cool and everything, but he's not capable of the ridiculous one-liners ("I was out of bullets." "Yeah, I saw it - I did it!") that McClane fires off. And I think we all know that one-liners are absolutely imperative when it comes to who we look up to as heroes.

Winner: Live Free or Die Hard

Protagonist:

Die Hard: From what I've seen, Justin Long is a pretty cool cat. His character was pretty insecure though, tiptoeing through the movie not quite sure of how to help and what to do next. He's good when he's got a computer in front of him, but aside from that he's honestly pretty useless as a protagonist. You rooted for him a little bit, because in a sense it was like rooting for yourself, watching McClane move from location to location killing terrorists, dropping one-liners, and being a badass. We needed Matt Farrell to survive in order to follow McClane, but he wasn't the most important character in the movie.

Transformers: Shia LaBeouf is great. He's my favorite young actor right now, and I'm sure he won't disappoint in the upcoming Indiana Jones movie where he plays Indy's son. In Transformers, Sam is without a doubt the main character. He is a young kid who is just trying to get a car to impress a girl. Who can't relate to that? When he's caught up in this insane plot involving aliens, he doesn't freak out too much...he just rolls with it. As opposed to the audience's need for Matt Farrell merely to survive in LFoDH, the audience needs for Sam to succeed in Transformers. There's a big difference, and the audience is emotionally invested in Sam's every move. No matter how critical you are of this movie, you've gotta admit: you'll root for Sam by the end of the movie. This is due in part to the writers drafting a great screenplay, but is mostly accomplished by LaBeouf's natural charm.

Winner: Transformers

Special Effects:

Die Hard: The special effects in LFoDH were pretty awesome, especially with explosions coming as often as they did and there being as many gun shoot-outs as there were. But there's no comparison when it comes to overall special effects between these two movies.

Transformers: Michael Bay said Transformers had some of the most difficult renders in ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) history, and he didn't let me down. I've never seen so much debris in a movie in my life. There was so much destruction in this film. That city was completely ravaged by the end of the battle between Megatron and Optimus Prime, with buildings being completely torn apart and shattered glass everywhere. It didn't really have the "huge summer movie explosions" that we've come to expect from films like Independence Day (which, let's face it, sets the bar for every 4th of July release), but the explosions were more concentrated and spread out through the course of the movie. They didn't wait for just a couple of scenes to use up all their explosions; instead the filmmakers kept the action at a high rate and good pace without sacrificing graphics along the way, which is commendable. Aside from all this, the Autobots and Decepticons looked absolutely amazing...there were always moving parts on them and they were incredibly detailed. Plus, there were some cool car chases (a Michael Bay staple), so I was happy.

Winner: Transformers

The Girl:

Die Hard: Mary Elizabeth Winstead is definitely quality. She's got that girl-next-door hotness that makes her seem almost attainable to non-actors, like she'd be cool to hang out with. That vibe is rare these days in young actresses. She played McClane's daughter Lucy, which is kind of like a movie version of Brooke Hogan - you don't want to mess with her dad. Actually, Lucy could hold her own pretty well, punching one of Thomas Gabriel's lackeys in the face with a swift right hook. She did a good job portraying the not-so-helpless damsel in distress.

Transformers: Everyone is going to be talking about Megan Fox after they see this movie. She is the definition of hot. Mark my words, fanboys everywhere will have posters of her adorning their walls, right next to their pictures of Cobra Commander and Darth Vader. So what if she's not a great actress? ("Why don't you try sacrificing something in your perfect little life?") She's got plenty of time to learn...and as long as she keeps learning on the big screen, guys everywhere will be happy. Nobody said that the three Jessicas (Alba, Biel, Simpson) were good actresses, either - and they get work all the time. Megan Fox is here to stay.

Winner: Transformers

Patriotism:

Die Hard: I think this is the most patriotic film of the franchise, and definitely the one with the most political commentary. While the entire movie was basically a swipe at the U.S. Government's ineptitude under President Bush (the Hurricane Katrina references, all the government computer agencies being completely incompetent), it still had a strong patriotic message throughout the whole movie. There were American flags everywhere, and the entire country was being attacked, as opposed to Transformers where it seemed just a small squadron of soldiers and one city were destroyed. The whole "I'm not a hero" speech from McClane was awesome, and really reminds us of the true heroes in this country who help us out on a daily basis. I almost wanted to join the police force right after I left the theater.

Transformers: This, too, was a very patriotic movie. Oh sure, there were some shots at President Bush in this one, too ("I need a ding dong."), but it still had the overall air of patriotism. It wasn't quite as overtly patriotic as LFoDH was, because there weren't an overabundance of American flags hanging in every third scene, but it was still patriotic. Muscle cars, eBay, robots - the whole thing screamed capitalism and Americana at its finest. The everyman and his girl banded together to do what's right and were willing to sacrifice their lives if necessary for the common good. That's what America is all about. Even the cinematography (which was very similar to LFoDH, but more stylized) and the color palette chosen for the movie gave off a patriotic vibe. Nicely done, filmmakers. Greg said that he wanted to join the military right after he saw this, but I didn't have that same reaction. Unlike LFoDH, in which a police officer saves the day, a kid and his giant robots saved the day in Transformers while the government failed to get organized and do anything about it.

Winner: Live Free or Die Hard

Final Score: Live Free or Die Hard = 5, Transformers = 4

Wow, that was a LOT closer than I thought it would be. I had no idea what the final score would be when I started this. Cool. Anyway, I really, really enjoyed both of these movies to the utmost degree. I absolutely loved Live Free or Die Hard, and Transformers was everything it was hyped up to be. Hopefully I didn't ruin anything for you - after all, they're just summer movies: you don't have to think too hard to enjoy them. Go see both of these movies in the theater...it's totally worth the price of admission. Summer entertainment at its finest. This was fun. Until next time...

The Musketeer

Western Wednesdays have been a staple of the summer for about four or five weeks now, but Terrible Tuesdays have been more of a loose suggestion: last week, we watched Dead & Breakfast on Terrible Tuesday, and that was entertaining to the utmost degree. This week we turned to 2001's The Musketeer on this so-Terrible-of-Tuesdays to entertain us, expecting extravagant action scenes and some quality swashbuckling. What we got was something that was quite simply...terrible.


In retrospect, I should have known that this version could never compare to the fantastic 1993 adaptation starring Kiefer Sutherland, Charlie Sheen, Oliver Platt, Chris O'Donnell, and Tim Curry. If you haven't seen that film yet, then stop reading this now and go buy it. It's excellent. That one was a Disney flick, and we all know that live action Disney movies aren't necessarily the greatest films to ever hit the big screen. (Yes, Tom and Huck. I'm talking to you.) But the 1993 version succeeded where the newer one failed: character development, comedy, fun, and (surprisingly) even action.

Character Development
The introduction and development of characters in the '93 version was so far above what the 2001 movie achieved that it's not even in the same stratosphere. We had a complete look into the backstories of Athos (a count betrayed by his wife and torn apart by his own bitterness and betrayal), Porthos (a loyal pirate whose legend lived up to his actual persona), Aramis (a snide priest who takes religion seriously, but is willing to kill if it means protecting the king), and d'Artagnan (a fresh-faced adult trying to prove his worth to the world and follow in his slain father's footsteps). We even had a better portrayal of Cardinal Richelieu (the conniving villain who embodied evil in disguise) and his greed motivating him to take power. The young King and Queen's relationship was a key plot point, and in the new one they are both old and hardly ever spoken about. The treaty with the Duke of Buckingham drives the plot of about half of the older film, while it is barely mentioned in this version. Rochefort, the "man in black" ex-Musketeer, murderer of d'Artagnan's father, and current captain of the Cardinal's guards, is played wonderfully by a Val Kilmer look alike in the older one - and even HIS character is more fleshed out than the crappy 2001 version. They didn't even call him Rochefort in the new one. Whoever was in charge of casting did such a horrible job that it was difficult to tell sometimes who the main musketeers were: the only means of identification was the classic "blue versus red" color scheme worn by the musketeers and the Cardinal's guards, respectively.

Comedy
There's no question that the 2001 film was not intended to be a comedy. Director Peter Hyams (the Van Damme classic Sudden Death) was supposed to give the movie "eastern-influences" and present a new take on the classic story. There were some times when it attempted to be funny but, aside from a notable scene where a baker was locked away and then asked for cooking help by a disguised musketeer, the one-liners were weak and the comedy just wasn't there. In the '93 version, the comedy was plentiful, thanks mostly to the work of Oliver Platt's Porthos. I won't dwell on this too much, but suffice it to say that it's a kid's movie but the jokes are still funny now. Fun kind of goes hand-in-hand with this category. The 2001 film seems like it's straining just to reach the next action scene (of which there really aren't that many). I personally thought the best part of this version was Mena Suvari's character. Her relationship with d'Artagnan provided most of the bearable moments of the movie as the film plowed forward through a screenwriter's nightmare of a script. This relationship rekindles thoughts of a Robin Hood/Maid Marian vibe and the classic damsel in distress story, especially toward the end of the thankfully-not-too-long film. D'Artagnan's character, according to one of my fellow film viewers, seemed to "do whatever he wanted without anyone stopping him." Even Superman has a flaw, folks: our hero needed a little more opposition for his fight to be considered fun. He was barely even trying.

Action
Man, this is where I was most disappointed. I really thought that the action in the 2001 version would be something worth remembering. Sadly, this is not the case. It tried to be new and original, oh it tried. But it just didn't do it for me. You may call me biased toward the first one: and you're right. But that doesn't make me wrong when it comes to the action scenes not being that great in the 2001 movie. It's a known fact that I'm a fan of ridiculous action scenes, and some of the action scenes in here were pretty out there, but they either didn't go far enough or they went too far - I haven't decided yet. That ladder scene, for one, where the ladders didn't seem to follow any laws of physics, sticks out as disappointing and pretty generic when it comes to sword fighting scenes. (Mask of Zorro definitely had better all-around sword fighting, plus it had the added bonus of Catherine Zeta-Jones.) Right before that, d'Artagnan decided to scale a tower with a grappling hook (which I'm fairly certain hadn't been invented yet) and fight about six guys dangling from ropes halfway up, spinning wildly and kicking indiscriminately at his questionably-minded attackers. The one cool fight they had was in the very beginning of the film at the bar, and even this one was a stretch: d'Artagnan fights off four or five men while he's rolling atop wine barrels in a bar and not only wins, but doesn't break a sweat. (Shrugs shoulders and shakes head.) The action scenes in the '93 movie were so much cooler: cannonballs being launched as the Three Musketeers race through the woods, the ship battle at Calais, and my personal favorite: the epic showdown between the Musketeers and the Cardinal's guards after the assassination attempt on the King's life in the courtyard. It didn't use any wires, but it got the job done.

The tagline for the 2001 flick says "As You've Never Seen It Before." I wish I could say the same about my actual encounter with this DVD. Seriously - go see the old one. It's infinitely better, about 1,000 times more quotable, and it's got that catchy theme song by Bryan Adams, Sting, and Rod Stewart. Until next time...

Spider-Man 3

Warning: Do not read if you haven't seen the movie.

Spidey's back in black as he returns to the big screen for Spider-Man 3, the newest in the continuing series of films that have arguably given the superhero genre the most legitimacy since Tim Burton's Batman. New villians, new characters, and new problems present themselves to Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst as they blunder through the film caught in a whirlwind of nonsensical romantic situations and too much plot for their own good.


I'm sure you guys were about as sick of hearing about this movie as I was. They started hyping it like 13 months ago. I hate it when they do that - by the time the movie comes out, you feel like you've already seen everything you need to see. There WAS one real surprise that wasn't advertised and therefore came as a delightful bonus to a Kirsten Dunst-filled film: the magnificently attractive Gwen Stacy, played by Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village, Lady in the Water). As a new love interest for Peter Parker, Bryce stole the show with her dazzling cuteness and girl-next-door qualities. (Disclaimer: This could be a side effect from seeing too much Kirsten Dunst on screen, causing ANY OTHER female (including Aunt May) to seem like Scarlett Johansson at the beach. Regardless - Bryce was lookin' good.) Enough of that.

Spider-Man 3 wasn't spectacular, but it was definitely above average. It was a good summer movie: it had the requisite action, the love story, and the cool swinging camera shots we've come to expect from this movie series. However, it did not offer anything to kick it to an "holy crap, that movie was awesome" level. Personally, I came away slightly disappointed. It's a shame when you get excited about average movies because you haven't seen anything better recently, making (in your mind) the movie you just saw seem better than it actually was. That's how I felt after Spider-Man 3. (This feeling could also be attributed to the fact that I watched Lucky Number Slevin two days before seeing SM3, and L#S could possibly be one of the best movies in the past 10 years. )

The main reason that I didn't like Spider-Man 3 as much as I thought I might is because of its blatant similarities to other movies in the same genre. I felt like in the first two, the filmmakers did well keeping the storylines moderately original and really set the franchise apart from "just another superhero movie." After all, Spider-Man 2 was the second-highest grossing film of 2004 behind Shrek 2. As for the subject at hand, I've got some problems with this threequel (aka third movie, second sequel).

First off, they tried to intertwine too many stories at once. This isn't Traffic or Crash - it's a summer blockbuster. What are you guys trying to do, here? There was the thief breaking out of jail turning into the Sandman, Parker's rivalry with Brock at the Daily Bugle, the Gwen Stacy sideplot (pictured at left), Mary Jane's failing career, Brock's transformation into Venom, Peter's revenge on his uncle's killer, Peter's dancing in the streets shooting the double guns left and right, Harry's amnesia, Harry's regaining his memory and forcing MJ into a fake break-up, Harry trying to kill Peter, Harry saving Peter, Harry dying for Peter...HOLY CRAP, THERE'S TOO MUCH HAPPENING. I understand that audiences are (I hope) physically and mentally able to comprehend everything that's going on, but that doesn't mean that they should be forced to. Spread it out a little, screenwriters.

Second, the three-villain combo is reminiscent of late 90's Batman movies. Bad idea. We all saw how that worked out in Batman & Robin. Enough said.

Third, the Sandman's character was a complete rip off of the Mummy from those Brendan Fraser movies. It looked like they literally recycled some footage from the Mummy movies and inserted it into New York City. Also, if you could grow in direct proportion with how much sand was in your immediate area, riddle me this: Why wouldn't you just go to the friggin' beach, grow to be like 600 feet tall, and then start doing some real damage instead of just robbing banks? They're probably going to catch you, unless you get the standard "unmarked, non-sequential bills" that villains are always asking for. Sandman didn't make any specifications in his demands. He didn't even demand anything. The Sandman's not the sharpest tool in the shed, says I. Plus, with the inclusion of Sandman trying to save his daughter, they tried to make him the standard "sympathetic villain" that we've seen OVER AND OVER again in examples like Mr. Freeze (Batman & Robin), Magneto (the X-Men series), V (V For Vendetta) to some degree, and even Doc Ock from the last Spider-Man incarnation. Throw something new our way.

What's that? You DID throw something new our way? Venom, you say? Hah! He was hardly even in the movie at all. At one point, I leaned over to Branz and said that the symbiote had lain dormant in Peter Parker's apartment for about 2 weeks, waiting for some arbitrary time to make its move. I wouldn't have beef with this except for the way that they portrayed the symbiote in the bell tower scene when it shifted over to Eddie Brock. In that scene, the alien organism immediately switched personas when Parker ditched it with the church bells, taking over Brock within 30 seconds. If the thing had such an intense need for a host, why did it wait for two weeks in Peter's apartment just sitting under his bed? Doesn't make sense. This coupled with the fact that Brock's version of Venom was in the movie for a staggering 25 minutes doesn't really even count as a villain appearance. That's like saying that Sean Connery starred in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

All this aside, the performances were just as you'd expect. Kirsten Dunst was awful as Mary Jane, Tobey Maguire was his usual goofy self, Topher Grace was pretty good as Eddie Brock, J.K. Simmons was awesome as J. Jonah Jameson, and Rosemary Harris ain't gettin' any younger.

As much fun as it is to rip on Ms. Dunst, you can't place all the blame on her. She's just trying to do her job. She's not the one who came up with the idea that Peter literally backhands her in the face and a few scenes later she gets back together with him. (Connery would approve.) I know this isn't supposed to be the most realistic film ever put to celluloid, but the filmmakers should at least make an attempt at being reasonable. You know who they should have cast as Mary Jane? Bryce Dallas Howard! She actually has red hair, plus she's hot. I don't think the audience can really get the reaction the director wants when they are hoping that Peter actually dumps Mary Jane for Gwen Stacy. Why wasn't I in charge of casting? Until next time...

Disturbia

Although the official web site never explicitly states that Disturbia is a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1954 classic Rear Window, that's pretty much what it is. The screenwriters (who also worked on 2005's Red Eye) stayed true to the Hitchcock feel of the movie while keeping it interesting for the attention span-impaired audiences of today.


As of April 23rd, the movie is leading the box office for the second week in a row. It's easy to see why. Shia LaBeouf is so dang likeable, you can't help but pull for him. He plays Kale, a high school kid on house arrest for punching his Spanish teacher in the face. (I'd explain why, but it would give away the incredibly powerful opening scene of the film.) Relegated to within 100 feet of his house by an ankle tracking device, the cops arrive on scene if Kale breaks the barrier. To keep himself occupied, he begins spying on his neighbors and discovers some interesting drama around him - nothing of more interest than the hot new girl next door, Ashley (played by Sarah Roemes). But when Kale, his friend Ronnie (Aaron Yoo), and Ashley discover a neighbor who just might be a serial killer, things get a little more interesting.

Aside from its Hitchcockian similarites, the movie was really nothing more than an acting vehicle for Shia LaBeouf, who deservedly is on the rise as one of the Hollywood's most talented young actors. The kid has a natural charm that you can't help but like...you know the type - girls want to be with him, guys want to be him. He plays the role of Kale with ease, switching between funny and serious tones when necessary. David Morse was excellent as the eerie neighbor. If this guy wasn't cast, then Disturbia would have been pretty average. His sinister looks and commanding presence kicked the movie to another level. Carrie-Anne Moss (Trinity from the Matrix series) played Kale's mom, but her performance was so lackluster that it was interchangeable with any other actress in the necessary age range. Sarah Roemes did a fairly competent job with the girl next door character. There's no way that her character would have reacted the way she did if she was a real person, but that's no fault of Sarah's - that's the screenwriter's blunder. Even with some ridiculous situations (Kale's balcony speech), a questionable premise (house arrest? Come on...), and some improbable coincidences (the cop being the cousin of the Spanish teacher), Disturbia accomplished its goal.

To avoid being a straight up "remake" of Rear Window, the writers had to update the script accordingly. Disturbia relies on technologically proficient heroes who utilize video cameras to spy on their neighbors, unlike the binocular/zoom lens-bound Jimmy Stewart from the original. The suspense in both films was awesome, and the whole vibe transferred well to movie screens in 2007. The filmmakers did a superb job driving the tension to its highest points in dark hallways and basements near the end of the film, and the climactic confrontation was expertly edited to attain maximum "on-the-edge-of-your-seat-edness."

Personally, I think the overall statement of the movie (It's not always terrible to spy on your neighbors - you may find something illegal happening) was more relevant to its McCarthy-era counterpart. But I can see why now was a good time to "remake" it - with post-9/11 tensions the way they are in America, the same rules can apply to today's society.

If you can get past a few coincidences and trivialities, I think you'll really enjoy Disturbia. Normally after I leave a theater I tend to concentrate on things that I didn't like about the movie, but this one left me thinking about the parts I did like. When a film succeeds in doing that, I know it's doing something right. Dare I say, Jimmy Stewart would be proud. Until next time...