Category Archives: Action Movies

Wolverine One Last Time

Everyone Makes Mistakes…But They’re Still Funny

I’m a loyal reader of Really. I check them out at least once a day for any updates on movie news. That’s more often than I check the weather or the stock market. Hell, some days, that’s more often than I check my watch.

They’re good at what they do, and their output is about a ga-jillion times higher than my little low-quantity (But high-quality! Right? Right?!) blog, which makes the fact that they so rarely make mistakes that much more impressive.

But it also makes it that much more surprising when they do. And in this case, it’s a bit funny, too.

Earlier today, Silas Lesnick, writing for, posted an article about Hugh Jackman’s teaser art for his final outing as Wolverine, and Jackman’s call out to fans asking what they’d like to see in his last film as the perpetually pissed-off X-Man. It was a well-written article, but it contained one glaring error:

“To be directed by James Mangold (who, in addition to helming The Wolverine, worked with Jackman on 3:10 to Yuma), the new film is penned by David James Kelly.”

Did you know Hugh Jackman was in "3:10 to Yuma"? That's because he wasn't.

Did you know Hugh Jackman was in “3:10 to Yuma”? That’s because he wasn’t.


I’ve got enough trust in ComingSoon.Net that I actually wondered whether I’d seen 3:10 to Yuma twice (once within the last year) and completely missed Hugh Jackman’s presence, so I looked it up at just to be sure. I’ve been wrong before (just ask my high school chemistry teacher), but not this time!

James Mangold did work with Jackman on one film aside from 2013’s The Wolverine, but it wasn’t 3:10 to Yuma, which starred Christian Bale and Russell Crowe–it was 2001’s Kate & Leopold, in which Jackman plays a 19th-century duke who accidentally time travels to 21st-century New York City.

Clearly, these movies are too different–and Lesnick is too good at his job–for this to be a simple case of confusion. I actually think he owed Jackman a favour, and was trying to attribute a better movie to him.

Or maybe Lesnick is doing his part to move Hollywood out of its current remake phase and usher in the age of mash-ups. 3:10 to Charles Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters…I think I’d see that, especially if Hollywood promises to stop rebooting Spider-Man every five years.

Die Hard with a Vengeance

FBI Questioned Screenwriter of ‘Die Hard with a Vengeance’ over Bank Heist Plot

Bruce Willis’ Die Hard series has been alive for over 25 years, and there are reports of a script for a sixth film in the works. When the original was released in 1988, it was so full of vitality that it arguably gave new life to the action genre as a whole, and it’s still one hell of a ride today. Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990) shifted the setting to an airport and soared fairly high itself. Some critics seem to dump on 1995’s Die Hard with a Vengeance (come on, RottenTomatoes critics, 51%?? Seriously?!), but I loved the pairing with Samuel L. Jackson, the clues around the city, the connection to the first film’s villain, and the presence of McLean’s wife, Holly, although she’s never seen. Live Free or Die Hard (2007) had its moments, but with the exception of Jeepers Creepers and Mac vs. PC commercials, I am not a fan of Justin Long, and the film lost me when McLean stands on the back of a flying fighter jet–I was waiting for him to fly over the Fonz as he jumps the shark, or squeeze into the fridge with Indy (come on, RottenTomatoes critics, 82%?? Seriously?!). A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) should have been titled I Simply Refuse to Die Hard, or Otherwise, although virtually all of its problems are due to the writers, directors, editors, sound mixers…the point is, Willis himself was fine.

"Hey Sam, you'll never guess who's on the phone..."

“Hey Sam, you’ll never guess who’s on the phone…”

At its best, the series is exceptionally smart and inventive; if you need proof, consider the fact that the FBI called Die Hard with a Vengeance screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh to question him regarding his plotting of the US Federal Reserve heist portrayed in the film. I stumbled across that little tidbit in an article by Kelly Konda over at We Minored in Film. Apparently, the Feds were concerned because they realized Hensleigh’s idea might actually work, which prompted them to rethink security at the Reserve. Check out the original article for more details.

In the meantime, if you happen to talk to Hensleigh, tell him to read Variety‘s 1994 mainly negative review of the film–RottenTomatoes attributes it to Brian Lowry, but the byline on the original article just reads ‘Variety Staff’–which specifically criticizes its “overly involved heist that takes far too long to set up.” I’m pretty sure he’ll laugh…with a vengeance.