lostintwinpeaks

I really enjoyed this ... for the first hour. Then I got bored. The plot wandered down too many narrative blind alleys, the weirdness becoming increasingly less sinister and almost comically OTT, before culminating in a finale that worked as a sequel to the film's first half hour but further undercut the whole middle section, making it seem like little more than needlessly convoluted filler. Overall, I really enjoyed many aspects of the film - from the many genre-crossing thematic motifs to the wonderful '70's mise en scène - but dialling down the ridiculously cheesy moments and cutting the length could have turned this Lynch-lite mess into a tighter, suspenseful little gem. Entertaining when it's not boring, "The Box" is better than Kelly's second film but still not a patch on his first.

Rising star-of-the-moment Shia LaBeouf plays Kale, a teenager who receives the ultimate grounding – house arrest with a security bracelet on his ankle. He can't leave his house or the immediate surroundings. Bored and depressed (he's also recovering from the shock of his father's death), he slouches around the house until he finds a hobby – spying on his neighbours with his telescope. When he begins to witness shady goings-on in neighbour David Morse's house across the street, he suspects he may have stumbled onto a murder mystery. With the help of his best friend and the cute girl-next-door, Kale sets out in search of answers.

Disturbia has been billed a "Hitchcockian thriller". Sure, there are shades of Hitchcock's 1954 masterpiece, Rear Window – but that's only because this teen thriller is a barely-disguised rip-off (the studio would no doubt say "homage") of that film. Director D.J. Caruso is no Hitchcock. He mishandles many scenes, relying on cheap scare tactics and rushing scene transitions so that any chance of lingering suspense never reaches a pay-off. The pacing is effective for the first half of the film, but things get increasingly fumbled as it wears on. The overall shift in pace from slow build-up to the finale's blundering version of a PG-rated horror (dark shadows, darker basements, slasher-lite non-deaths) particularly jars.

The script does have some witty, knowing lines ("That's 30 gigs of my life," Kale says at one point of his iPod) and a general up-to-the-minute overview of modern teen culture (Xbox Live and iTunes are LaBeouf's fellow housebound pals till his mother cuts them both off). But otherwise the script is weak and riddled with holes. The characterisation is thin. David Morses's villain is never properly sketched out – his reasons, motives, etc. Perhaps this was an attempt to make him seem creepier by virtue of being an enigma, but it doesn't work. The cast does their best. LaBeouf equips himself quite well and David Morse as the villain is the most effective, all hard stares and cold eyes, in a reasonably creepy role. And yes, that is The Matrix's Carrie Anne Moss as Kale's mother.

The film will please many with its quick pace, overall trendiness, snappy soundtrack, and hip cast. But beneath the surface gloss, this thriller has little suspense, few surprises, and no genuine scares. Ultimately, Disturbia's title is edgier than the film itself.

Live Free or Die Hard (known here in Europe as Die Hard 4.0) is the fourth film in the popular Die Hard franchise of action films starring Bruce Willis as John McClane, a detective with the NYPD.

The first Die Hard appeared in 1988, a no-frills action-suspenser that was followed by 1990's Die Hard 2: Die Harder and 1995's Die Hard With A Vengeance. Both films were not bad as action films (and sequels in general) go. The second film suffered from being a little too similar to the first's premise, while the third upped the ante somewhat and injected some much-needed new twists and turns on a by then already-jaded franchise.

This new Die Hard comes nineteen years after the first and twelve years after the last installment. Bruce Willis reprises his role as McClane. No other previous characters reappear. Sadly, McClane's wife Holly (played by the brilliant Bonnie Bedelia) disappeared after the second film, and you miss Vengeance's Samuel L. Jackson. A lot of new characters don their Die Hard hats with varying degrees of success. Timothy Olyphant isn't bad as the villain (though doesn't hold a candle to Alan Rickman or Jeremy Irons). Justin Long is Willis's new sidekick. And we meet McClane's grown-up daughter, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Long and Winstead put effort into their parts and seem to be enjoying the trip. They're nothing to write home about, however, just two more twenty-somethings indistinguishable from most of Hollywood's line-up of young, good-looking stars.

All the Die Hard films have been based on books or original scripts intended for other franchises (the first two were based on novels and the third was intended to be a Lethal Weapon film). This one continues in that vein, being based again on the written word, this time on a 1997 article "A Farewell to Arms" written for Wired magazine by John Carlin.

The film's storyline is about virtual hackers and McClane now up against a world he doesn't understand. Hence, his need for a new sidekick, Long's whizz kid computer hacker. To be honest, the plot isn't important and you don't really need to know it. Suffice to say, it's serviceable but no more. What really matters here is: how well does this film live up to its three predecessors? The answer is fairly well. In some ways it is the weakest of the series but, all in all, a night out – no more and no less.

The action is big, bad and bold (though sometimes very repetitive). There are no real surprises, sadly, and that's what I found most disappointing. Sure, McClane is subjected to many perils but you never doubt for one moment that he will survive any of them. The finale when it comes is a bit too quick, a rush job, surprising considering the over-extended battles in the middle of the film.

It seems a pity that, considering the article it was based on, the general paranoia of today's wired world, and the fact that this is the first post-9/11 Die Hard film, that more wasn't made out of the premise. With a bit more attention to the script and some retooling of the set-pieces, we could have had a much better film, something that not only thrilled you with its action but made you think. But that's not what these films are about.

My final comment on this is simply that it's not bad. If you like your action films loud and no-nonsense and you enjoyed the first three Die Hards, then chances are you'll like this one. The film is predictable to the extreme, however, so don't expect any surprises.