Screw this; I'm going home. On the first day of production, the people footing the bill for Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins have announced that the future is actually ending prematurely, as the violent, perennially R-rated franchise is going PG-13 for its fourth installment. The reason? I'll bet you can guess. In addition to "broadening the audience base," the producers are hoping for (or have already signed; it's not really clear) a merchandising deal with Playmates Toys. Dear God. Clearly, they're trying to bring about a fanboy mass suicide.

Maybe it's not yet time to panic. After all, I still managed to have a blast with last year's PG-13 Live Free or Die Hard, and that franchise, what with John McClane's penchant for the f-bomb, was arguably even more dependent on the freedom of the R than Terminator. And with a few exceptions (that unforgettable shot of the T-1000 disguised as John Connor's mom impaling Xander Berkeley on its pointy metal arm comes to mind), the reasons the Terminator films -- Judgment Day in particular -- are so disturbing have little to do with heavy violence; Robert Patrick rising out of the linoleum floor is scarier than any amount of gore could be. The MPAA is surely tone-deaf enough to censor the blood but let the really scary stuff through. And anyway, as the producers point out in the article, the PG-13 ain't what it used to be.

With the exception of Live Free or Die Hard, I can't say I'm all that big of a fan of Len Wiseman's work. However, I know that plenty of people still flock to his movies, so who am I to judge? Variety reports that Wiseman has signed to direct the sci-fi action flick, Shell Game.

The story centers on your prototypical gumshoe type who is investigating the black market for something just a little more valuable than pirated DVDs. In this future, for a price, you can buy yourself immortality. Justin Bondi and Andrew Ludington wrote the screenplay, but it has undergone some rewrites. The most recent draft was written by Wiseman and Chris Morgan.

Wiseman says that he considers Shell to be a passion project and told Variety, "I've been wanting to make this film for the past five years, but it's a huge film and has always been too expensive to make at the level I've wanted to make it at, now I'm finally getting a chance to do it at that level." I guess that means we can count on the film having some expensive special effects.

Also, even though he won't be directing it, Wiseman is still planning to produce the third installment of the Underworld franchise. But it looks like most of his attention is going to be placed firmly on Shell Game instead. Judging by the reaction to his last Underworld flick, I'd say it was probably a good call.

There's a continuing debate about whether or not computer-animated films should be eligible for visual effects awards. But despite the fine line seen by some, others are quick to point out that many effects artists have the same function on Surf's Up as they do on Spider-Man. To them, it should come as quite a triumph that the Oscar shortlist for the visual effects category includes two animated films, Ratatouille and Beowulf. According to the Hollywood Reporter, they join 13 other effects-heavy movies, including definite front-runners Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and Spider-Man 3. The trade points out, however, that this is not the first time animated films have joined the effects race. Back in 1994, The Nightmare Before Christmas was one of the three nominees (against Cliffhanger and obvious winner Jurassic Park).

The animated effect issue is different now, though, then it was 14 years ago. Animated films now have their own Oscar category, and it's fair to say that is the place to recognize Ratatouille and Beowulf (actually Beowulf shouldn't be recognized at all). Typically movies nominated in the visual effects category are popular blockbusters that wouldn't otherwise receive notice from the Academy. Until there's an Oscar for best sci-fi/fantasy or action movie, this is one of the best ways for a little movie like Transformers to be put in the spotlight. Sure, I'm being sarcastic, but nonetheless I like the category being the place for those movies actually seen by the majority of Oscar telecast viewers.

Dear 20th Century Fox,

I'm writing to request from your offices a reimbursement of funds totaling $11.00, which I believe were obtained from me under false pretenses. As a regular consumer of your products, I rely heavily on the advertising you produce to inform me when I make choices about which films to see and which to avoid, and my reliance on said advertising constitutes a bond of good will between you, the movie studio, and me, the audience member. I believe that bond has been broken in the case of Live Free or Die Hard, a new film that purports to be the continuing adventures of beloved movie character John McClane, but is in reality a film revolving around an entirely new character, who I shall henceforth refer to in this letter as Indestructible Fathead. Before I go on, let me stipulate that I was, in fact, offered a chance by you to see this film for free before its general release, and had I taken you up on that offer, my monetary damages might be lessened. The psychological damages would, I'm afraid, remain.

Like all Die Hard films (or films representing themselves as such) there is a terrorist plot at the center, but despite watching with close attention, I honestly couldn't tell you what it's supposed to be about. We're introduced to a team of cyber-terrorists, led by Timothy Olyphant and Maggie Q, who are attempting to pull off a 'Fire Sale,' which I gather means executing a rapid, simultaneous shutdown of our nation's regional power grids. The simultaneous part is apparently the key, since it has the desired effect of short-circuiting any backup plans and therefore crashes America's infrastructure. Anything run by computer will no longer work. Financial records gone, utilities gone, and so on. In other words, they declare total war on America, from the back of a moving truck. There are so many plot holes here that I won't insult your intelligence by pointing them out. Watching this plot unfold, I was reminded of what Roger Ebert said about Jaws: The Revenge -- that some executive at the studio should have been put in charge of making sure it was at least "a passable thriller."

Oftentimes Hollywood's lack of originality leads to overexposed trends. Remember when every action movie seemed to be easily defined as 'Die Hard on a ...'? Remember when disaster movies were all the rage? And then twenty years later when they were all the rage again? Remember when there were like a hundred body-swapping comedies? Well, there appear to be fewer trends these days, or maybe it's just that Hollywood turns trends into full-blown practices, as in the case of sequels, comic book movies and fantasy films based on literary franchises. Nowadays even a promised trend, like the one involving religious Passion of the Christ copycats, isn't necessarily going to happen. But despite there being so few here-today-gone-tomorrow film fads, there's at least seven bad ideas currently in vogue in Tinsel Town, and all of them need to disappear soon, lest they too become permanent.

1. Torture Porn

I'm going to start with an easy, surely obvious one. Torture porn is the latest trend in horror, a genre that changes its predominant style every few years, and it may be the most despised -- at least by us non-horror junkies. I miss the days when a friend, an actual junkie, could drag me to a harmless scary movie that provided a few screams, a few laughs and afterward, at the most, a few silly nightmares. Now, with each new horror movie there's promise of a seriously depressing experience. After watching The Hills Have Eyes, I realized I hadn't been frightened at all. Instead I wanted to cry my heart out. I haven't been to a horror flick since, and my friend is going solo. Sure, I hear that Eli Roth's movies are a lot more enjoyable than watching a young woman raped while watching her father burned alive and her mother raped and then shot in the head, but I just haven't been in the mood to find out.

Apparently the torture porn trend is already on its way out. Hostel II performed poorly at the box office and Captivity may have peaked too soon, reaching maximum tastelessness before even opening in theaters. So what will be next? I'm rather looking forward to when slasher movies are in fashion again, when I can delight in seeing sinful human beings killed off quickly and deservedly by an implausible maniac. Which brings me to the next trend ...

As a high-octane action film starring Bruce Willis, Live Free or Die Hard is really quite spectacular -- what with its larger-than-life effects and nonsensical stunt maneuvers. But we're supposed to believe this is the next installment in the Die Hard franchise, and not "just another summer action flick." So when Detective John McClane leaps out of a squad car going 40mph, sending it up a concrete divider and into a conveniently-placed helicopter, you have to ask yourself this: Am I here for the popcorn action or am I here to spend two hours with one of my all-time favorite movie characters? If it's the latter, then you might find yourself slightly disappointed -- this isn't the same John McClane who woke up next to an unfinished cocktail and an empty bottle of aspirin. This is John McClane after he woke up next to an assortment of summer superhero flicks, chock-full of just enough explosive set pieces to make it worth your money.

If there's a Suspension of Disbelief machine currently on sale at your local Best Buy, then I suggest picking one up before heading to the movie theater. The first major difference between this Die Hard film versus the previous three is not the concept, but the execution. A group of clean-cut hackers hijack this country's most important support systems in an attempt to shut it all down while causing mass chaos. I can buy that. A jet hovering three feet above an active freeway? The fact that John McClane somehow has 47 lives when the rest of us get just one? Timothy Olyphant as a believable Die Hard villain? Kevin Smith's laughable role in the film (watching him try not to curse was almost as painful as watching him try not to act)? And McClane's daughter taking down a guy larger than three trees combined? This is Die Hard on steroids; jacked up to a level where it still looks familiar, except it's now capable of splitting you in two with its pinkie finger. But while it might hurt those expecting the punch, others will walk away not knowing what just hit them.

Just in time for the new Die Hard sequel, Live Free or Die Hard (or, as its called in the UK and elsewhere, Die Hard 4.0), my favorite film cynic, Guardian Unlimited columnist Joe Queenan, has given us a review of the first three movies. Rather than recap the actual plots of Die Hard, Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Die Hard: With a Vengeance, though, Queenan focuses on reminding us of the deaths and damages of the franchise, most of which he claims would have gotten Bruce Willis's character in a lot of trouble, or at least mixed up in a lot of red tape. Of course, this is has been a joke about action movies for over twenty years now; plenty of parodies have knocked the fact that heroes cause more destruction than should be necessary. But Queenan points out one serious issue with the second Die Hard film that I had forgotten. Willis' John McClane pretty much causes the deaths of more than 230 innocent people, including passengers of a crashed jet plane, which is downed by a terrorist who doesn't like McClane's taunting.

As usual, Queenan is taking the movies too seriously (though I'm sure he doesn't really; its just for the story). The fact that McClane is an everybody who saves the day and faces no consequences is part of the fantasy of action films of the era. Critics have pondered the genre as everything from male empowerment following women's rights to individual empowerment following the failure of Vietnam and/or amidst an age of global threats, be they communist or terrorist. But basically action movies, and the Die Hard movies especially, are an all-of-the-above fantasy about what we'd all hope to be able to do if placed in the worst possible situation. Sure, they give a promise of implausible and impossible solutions, but I don't think many people have tried to single-handedly defeat hijackers or other bad guys because of what has been seen in the movies (I guess you could suggest the passengers on United 93, but that would be an honorable exception).

Earlier this month, we reported that Bruce Willis is expecting Fox to do another Die Hard movie after Live Free and Die Hard. At the time, the actor mentioned he'd only be interested in part five if he's joined again by Live Free co-stars Maggie Q and Justin Long, as well as director Len Wiseman. In a new story from MTV, though, Willis hints about the idea of making a Die Hard prequel. Could that be the direction for Die Hard 5? I doubt it, considering, as Willis admits, he could only return as a young John McClane if there were some serious special effects makeup utilized. Personally, I don't think a prequel would make sense; the whole idea of the first Die Hard is that McClane is a normal guy who has never been in this kind of situation before. The only other thing that Willis had to say regarding another film is that he prefers that it be shot in the U.S., because Die Hard is an American film.

Unlike his character in Live Free or Die Hard, who is portrayed as an analog man in a digital world, Willis is pretty hip to computers. The interview from which MTV's story is pulled was conducted through a virtual press conference on the online world of Second Life. Willis appeared to fans as an avatar and even confessed to being an internet junkie, getting all his news and doing most of his communication via the web (we already knew he liked to comment on movie sites.) He also applauded Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who plays his daughter, for studying the previous Die Hard films in order to make her character completely recognizable as the spawn of McClane and his wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia, who only appeared in the first two movies.) Live Free or Die Hard hits theaters next Wednesday, after which we'll find out if Fox thinks another outing, prequel or not, is worth it.

If watching Timothy Olyphant make life tough for Bruce Willis' John McClane isn't enough to satiate you for one night, ComingSoon says that the first trailer for his other new action flick, Hitman, will screen before the movie next week. This would, hopefully, mean that you'll get your first official look at the actor as Agent 47 -- unless, of course, they got one of those teaser routes where they show absolutely nothing and we're made to be excited by the flashing name of the film and some cheesy voice-over. Last month, I alerted you to some pictures that surfaced showing Olyphant in his bald-headed glory, but the pictures were removed at the request of the studio a few days later. No more sexy...sorry, I don't mean to deflate any excitement you might have about the movie, so let me rephrase: manly, burping, muscle-laden, tough, clever, unstoppable testosterone for us to enjoy.

This will be the first English-language feature for Xavier Gens, from an adapted screenplay by Swordfish writer Skip Woods. The film will cover Agent 47 as he gets wrapped up in a political conspiracy and hunted by both interpol and the Russian military while traveling across Eastern Europe trying to find out who set him up. Dougray Scott is one of the guys chasing him, and I imagine that Olga Kurylenko is the beautiful, damaged girl he comes across, since she's the only female on the cast list. Other cast include Prison Break's Robert Knepper, Kingdom of Heaven's Ulrich Thomsen and Michael Offei, who had a small part in Casino Royale as Obanno's Lietenant.

The first eight minutes of Live Free or Die Hard are now available online, although I'm not entirely sure this is how the movie opens because it seems sort of awkward. If I had to take a guess, I'd say this is the first action sequence of the flick, since there needs to be some sort of set up where McClane (Bruce Willis) is instructed to pick up this cyber punk and drive him down to Washington D.C. (to which he replies, "Can't someone else do it, I'm having a really bad day). Regardless, if you're trying to decide whether or not to see the film, watching the first eight minutes or so should help you come to a decision. Personally, I'm not crazy about this sort of marketing tactic -- a three-minute trailer is one thing, but I'd rather wait until I'm inside a movie theater to watch a full-blown action scene in its entirety. But that's me. God knows there's tons of people out there who like watching movies on their computer screen (illegally and legally).

I only watched the first half of the clip so that I'd be able to write this post (I know, I broke my own rule), and in doing so I couldn't help but feel as if I was watching an entire film featuring the kid from those Mac commercials -- meaning I didn't see Justin Long as a new character, I saw Justin Long as the annoying, snobbish kid who thinks he's better than everyone else because his computer does fancy tricks. So that immediately took me out of the scene, which features John McClane showing up to this kid's apartment with orders to escort him to Washington D.C. But as they prepare to leave, the bad guys pop in looking to cause serious damage. That's where I shut it off, but I imagine from there the two dodge a few bullets, an assortment of fists, and get out of the joint just in the nick of time. I was a tad let down, but I'm still jazzed about seeing my favorite NYC police detective back on the big screen. Live Free or Die Hard hits theaters on June 27.