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.

I've been thinking about Paul Haggis' new movie In the Valley of Elah (9 screens). It's not a good movie, with its awkward mix of mystery and soapbox and its blatant attempt to snag a few Oscars. Poor Charlize Theron is stuck in the same kind of role that netted her an Oscar (Monster) and another nomination (North Country), wearing boxy clothes and no makeup and working in an all-male workplace, teased by her heartless co-workers. But Tommy Lee Jones' performance struck me as something special. Like Theron, he is also repeating a previous performance. But while Theron's role is all about its external factors, its layers of significance, Jones' performance has sprung organically from his personality.

For The Fugitive (1993), Jones won an Oscar for playing the relentless, meticulous pursuer, chasing Harrison Ford throughout the picture, and -- by some accounts -- stealing the film from its star. Jones made the role unique by dropping the typical "obsession," a word that is overused in Hollywood today, and concentrating on emotionless process and routine. It's a stripped-down performance; he saves his energy for his clipped, barked line deliveries. But at the same time, Jones' sad, droopy eyes revealed just a hint of his character's origins. He repeated the role, literally, in U.S. Marshals (1998), and again, figuratively, in Double Jeopardy (1999) and The Hunted (2003), as well as a comic version in Men in Black (1997).

We were thoroughly sequel-ized this summer; just about every movie that made any money in the past coughed up a remake or a sequel. And because the target audience apparently isn't old enough to know about any movies made before 2003, it's all as good as brand new. (You'll note that few, if any, of this summer's sequels had a number attached to it, as in Rush Hour 3. All the better to fool the young-uns in the audience.) Four such sequels have tumbled down into my humble less-than-400 screen territory, so I thought I'd take a moment to discuss some of the rules of good and bad sequels.

1. If you're starting up a superhero franchise, the "origin" part in the first movie is pretty dull and takes up a lot of screen time. The second in the franchise is always better, simply because we get to dive right in without a long setup. Even a movie as terrible as Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (187 screens) improves upon its even more terrible predecessor.

With school officially out for summer recess, I figured now might be a good time to take a look at what this highly-anticipated ("the biggest summer in history!") season has shoveled out so far. I'll also let you at home play along and tell Hollywood exactly what they're getting right, as well as what they're getting wrong, when it comes to providing its customers with satisfying summer entertainment. But first off, here's how my summer report card is shaping up (keep in mind, I've only included the more talked-about releases):

1. Spider-Man 3 (grade: C) -- I'm being generous with Spidey 3, because I'm certain there are tons of fans out there who would fail this film without giving it a second glance. But as far as amped-up summer popcorn flicks go, this third installment provided all the necessary ingredients needed to entertain those of us with severe cases of attention deficit disorder. There may have been a lack of focus, and the villain count was a tad high, but the fight sequences were definitely fun to watch.
2. Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End (grade: B -) -- I'm not sure why a film based on a theme park attraction has to have such a convoluted plot, but it seemed the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise managed to confuse more than it entertained. That being said, the special effects, coupled with Johnny Depp's colorful Captain Jack Sparrow performance, have given fans enough of a reason to keep coming back for more ... and more ... and more. Obviously, Disney is doing something right here -- when I figure out what that is, I'll let you know.
3. Shrek the Third (grade: B - ) -- Visually, the film looked stunning. However, sadly, that was the only thing Shrek the Third had going for it. The jokes seemed old, the voice acting wasn't anything special and the plot was jam-packed with so many characters, we never had time to enjoy the ones we've grown to love. Was it just me, or did it seem like Shrek the Third was spoofing itself?
4. Knocked Up (grade: A) -- Although the premise has been around forever, Judd Apatow and his gang of clever comedic magicians somehow found a way to make this thing pop. The jokes were raunchy but hysterical, even though the majority of them were geared toward a younger crowd. Tack on a heckuva lot of heart, and Knocked Up passed with flying colors.
5. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (grade: B) -- Yup, I happen to be in the camp that believes this sequel was not only better than the original, but it was better than the other sequels that opened up before it. Why? Well, read my review.
6. Ratatouille: (grade: A) -- Just when you think Pixar is due for a dud, they come at you with anything but. Most definitely a film for all ages (but, quite possibly, more geared toward adults this time), perhaps Pixar should strap Brad Bird to a chair and force him to write and direct the next three films as well.
7. Live Free or Die Hard (grade: C) -- As a summer action film, this flick certainly provides more bang for your buck. But it's not a Die Hard film; not even close. So what's more important: That the film entertains or that it stays true to the installments that have come before it?

So, I ask you: What does your summer report card currently look like?

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).