Entertainment Weekly says “Die Hard” is the greatest action movie of all time in its June 22 issue.

Entertainment Weekly often says a lot of hooey.

This time, though, the magazine may have gotten it right.

“May have” because as you and I know, everything is subjective.

ETdoesn’t really make a convincing argument when it puts the film atop its Top 25 list.

(See my criteria listed below.)

Mostly, they analyze the Bruce Willis character, New York detective John McClane, the man who will continually find himself in the wrong place at the wrong time - which is how we’re supposed to look at it - through three sequels.

“Live Free or Die Hard,” the newest, is easily the second strongest in the franchise and only a step or two beneath the original - which always gets extra points for being original - and extremely cool.

I don’t know what I would rank as No. 1; Bruce Lee’s “Enter the Dragon” used to be one of the first that came to mind when anyone said “pure action.”

John Carpenter’s “Assault on Precinct 13″ also earned top marks.

Ditto “Zulu” and “Terminator 2: Judgement Day.”

And “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is always at or near the top of my list.

“Freejack” and “The Last Boy Scout” regularly just miss the final cut.

ET and I agree on “Die Hard,” “Raiders,” “T2″ and “Enter the Dragon.”

I also like their picks of “Speed” and “The Adventures of Robin Hood,” which I keep forgetting.

Where the magazine lists “The Bourne Supremacy,” I’d go with “The Bourne Identity.” The former has too much of the herky-jerky close-up action that makes everything look like a chocolate sundae smudge.

“Aliens” is No. 2 in ET. I’d put “Aliens 2″ there instead; faster moving. more action, less talk.

I also like the “Spider-Man 2″ and “Wild Bunch” choices, but I think the latter has too much plot and dialogue - too much substance - to really qualify.

The must-have qualities:
1. does not take itself seriously
2. fast pace - no dead spots
3. wit: available in the face of extreme danger and often self-deprecating
4. enough strong action to distract from plotholes and stretches of illogic
5. strong appealing lead character or characters; they’re entertaining, you like them, you want them to succeed and survive at all costs, but preferably honorably
6. the ability to leave you feeling like you just got off a roller-coaster in heaven and you’re ready to go back a second time
7. and/or: the adrenaline rush is so strong that nothing will satisfy it except …. ice cream
8. it’s watchable again and again

“Die Hard” qualifies on all counts.

Do you agree? Disagree? What do you think is the best action film of all time? Every comment and comment shard is welcome and encouraged.

Feel free to vent in the box at the bottom.

I’ve never been a big fan of Angelina Jolie.

Except for a brief flirtation with her sexually charged portrayal of a cocky hacker in “Hackers,” I always found her too cool and distant.

She deserved the supporting Oscar she received for the Winona Ryder-goes-into-a-mental-institution soaper, “Girl, Interrupted.”

Her charisma opened a lot of eyes, mine included.

And as for the celeb thing, I’m sure the blood-around-the-neck amulet meant something, so who am I to judge?

Which brings us to “A Mighty Heart” - and Jolie’s mighty performance.

She’s spectacular as French journalist Mariane Pearl, pregnant wife of kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

She still maintains that cool facade in the role but it serves her well; as a consciously imposed control mechanism that allows Mariane to keep herself together and appear strong in the news, in case her husband and the kidnappers are watching.

She especially wants to appear like she’s holding up to her husband.

Jolie gives peeks into her character’s struggle underneath, and when she finally lets go it’s Oscar material.

The film, a blend of drama and thriller, plays like a documentary at times.

Michael Winterbottom directs with a sure hand and the story captivates even when you know all the details of the tragedy.

The film ends on a note of hope of sorts with the message that people keep on keeping on.

And life goes on.

Jolie’s handles the French accent well. I heard the real Mariane interviewed on radio the day after I saw the film, and Jolie nails it. Reportedly, the two have become close friends.

One other observation: I can’t call Jolie beautful; she has too many sharp edges, and they show in her face. I prefer softer.

But I can and do call her striking; she is a stunner. It’s the kind of attractiveness the camera captures in scene after scene in “A Mighty Heart.”

It’s a different kind of beauty, a Greek goddess kind, which is what her hairdo suggests - as it did in her snake-woman role in “Alexander.”

She’s striking beauty. And I am still impressed.

In movies, the moment when the star is introduced - or, in the case of “Fantastic Four” and other genre films, when a character first unveils his new identity - is called “The great reveal.”

I’ve been going to movies for decades and I never knew. Until I checked out the bonus features on “Fantastic Four - Extended Edition.”

In the cast commentary that goes with the theatrical version (vs. the extended version), Michael Chiklis says he stole Spencer Tracy’s patented reveal when he stepped out of the shadows, opened his trench coat and removed his hat to show his soon-to-be-ex-fiancee his scary new ID as The Thing.

Tracy, Chiklis explains, always looked down at his spot, then slowly looked up to show his face for the first time. Doesn’t sound like much, but it’s called “a great reveal.”

My telling you this is, in a way, my great reveal: It’s trivia, but the kind you can use when conversations hit an uncomfortable lull and you want to fill the void.

Or when you’re just in the mood to drop a nonsequitur.

Another recent learning as I dredged through tons of recent DVD releases for my weekly column - available at www.insidebayarea.com/movies - is that some good gag reels are attrached to bad movies, especially ones that take themselves oh, so seriously.

Case in point: I recently picked up a used copy of “The Gunman” - a 2003 suspense thriller whose cover carries the tagline: “The wrong target…for the right reason.”

It also shows a masked sniper with, in the background, three faces: Joey Lauren Adams has puckered lips and is paying rapt attention to something unseen in the distance; next to her, Mimi Rogers seems to be somewhere between frightened and concerned but not terribly; rounding out the trio, Sean Patrick Flanery, TV’s young Indiana Jones, looks stoned. Probably on his paycheck.

You know what you’re getting: lowbrow trash or borderline trash - but sometimes that hits the spot.

This delivers a serial killer who bumps off child molesters, a cop whose wife is killed, his unwelcome new rookie partner, and sundry others.

It’s a downbeat, unpleasant waste of time, but the gag reel hits the spot: Flanery and others flail with the lines, prop gaffes, the usual - but it’s all so much more entertaining after sitting through 92 minutes of dreck.

I don’t recommend the movie but I do recommend checking out the gag reel or outtakes among the extras the next time you watch a loser by mistake.

The majority of people don’t bother with bonus features, and for very good reason - the majority are a waste of time: They’re boring and add little to nothing to the experience but the chance to watch crew members praise each other ad infinitum.

(Naturally there are exceptions. Two that come to mind are “Fantastic Four - Extended Editions,” with its excellent documentaries about comic-book icons Jack Kirby and Stan Lee, and Marvel Comics, and much more. And the David Cronenberg commentary on “A History of Violence” remains one of the best as far as providing a mini-film-school education.)

(Also, while most gag reels don’t deliver, some, such as the outtakes on “The Producers” musical, are a joy.)

So don’t ignore them out of hand, especially after suffering through a lousy rental; you may as well get at least some of your money back.

Everyone’s got a dark side.

Some accept it, some opt for denial.

I haven’t done the research, I don’t know the numbers.

In movies such as “Mr. Brooks” and the Hannibal Lecter quartet, characters give into their dark side and, generally, enjoy the hell out of it.

It’s a kind of perversity - both Hannibal, as personified primarily by Anthony Hopkins, and Earl Brooks, played at the perfect note of creepiness by Kevin Coster - that intrigues audiences for a variety of reasons.

For one thing, it’s a good lesson as to what may lurk on the dark side, and the possible repercussions of setting it free.

With Brooks and Lecter, it’s impossible to separate the actions - murder and cannibalism with Hannibal, serial killing with Earl - from the character’s naturally base natures.

Certainly we aren’t like that.

Nor do we want to be - other than perhaps the occasional murderous fantasy after breaking up with a mate or a rude fool on the highway.

In our lives, the dark side comes through in anger, rage, self-abuse such as overeating - you can add your own examples.

At least one theory suggests you/we can’t be whole people without recognizing both sides and finding ways to reconcile them.

Another attraction: Hannibal and Mr. Brooks are complex people, and trying to understand or analyze them can be entertaining and instructive - it provides, or may provide, insights into others and into ourselves.

We may not be serial killers, we all hope, but everyone of us at one time or another no doubt has had the fleeting thought: I wish he, or she, was dead.

Though a reflection of a momentary emotion, that thought doesn’t come from the light side.

But it comes from somewhere, and being willing to examine it can be quite instructive, in terms of personal growth.

Or so I’ve read.

Another reason we like to watch the characters at work: We’re are all voyeurs at heart and we get a kind of let’s-not-analyze-it-too-closely pleasure of being Peeping Toms from a safe distance; i.e., it’s a perverse pleasure.

It’s also a chance to watch excellent performances. Costner’s no Hopkins but he more than hold his own as conflicted Mr. Brooks, especially when he sparring with his alter ego played convincingly by William Hurt.

See Costner in “The Upside of Anger,” where his talent just jumps at you.l

Mr. Brooks and Mr. Lecter offer fine escapism; being frightened is a job and some of the things that happen in their films provide excellent jolts.

“Mr. Brooks” would have been right up there with the best examples of user-friendly celluloid homicide madness if the film had remained focused on Brooks, his alter ego and the murders.

Instead, it trips into a Neverland where high-strung homicide detective Demi Moore deals with her greedy boy-toy ex; an escaped convict who’s sworn to kill her; her obsessive hunt for the notorious Thumbprint Killer (Brooks) and other odds and ends - despite having a net worth of $60 million.

Yeah, right.

Other killers and killer wannabes also cut into Costner’s action.

A pity.

I like watching him work, watching him shift from straight-laced family man to cold, observant, detail-oriented murderer.

It’s good to have boundaries; these guys don’t. We do.

I’ll respect yours if you respect mine.