Redux: Die Hard.

Redux Review #014: Die Hard.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (John McClane), Alan Rickman (Hans Gruber), Alexander Godunov (Karl), Bonnie Bedelia (Holly Gennaro-McClane), Reginald VelJohnson (Al Powell), Paul Gleason (Dwayne T. Robinson), De'voreaux White (Argyle), William Atherton (Richard Thornburg), Clarence Gilyard (Theo), Hart Bochner (Harry Ellis), and James Shigeta (Joseph Takagi) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review: 

From my review on December 22, 2010: 

This film brings exuberant joy and all the fun and bang in a 2-hour action packed film set on Christmas Eve. The acting is alright considering this an action film an all, with fine action and some decent suspense. Willis is the standout with a decent performance that would jump-start his career. This film would begin a franchise, which I will attempt to cover soon.

It's one of the best action films ever made. How much is there to say about Die Hard in the 35 years that have passed since its release? How many times can one watch the film and find new ways and things to examine? Well, you would be surprised. I actually can't believe I only thought the film was just a 9/10 as a teenager, particularly since it was one of those films that endure in the memory for quite some time. Probably one thing that didn't come to mind the first time I saw it is that it was actually based on a 1979 novel called Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp (a writer who also dabbled in a detective agency in his youth). The author had written the book as a follow-up to his previous procedural novel in The Detective, with this being inspired by a dream he had about men chasing each other through a building...after he had saw the 1974 film The Towering Inferno. I'm sure you can see those similarities and differences pop up: an aging ex-NYPD detective is being chased by terrorists (led by a man named "Tony the Red" Gruber) and tries to save his daughter (a Ms. Gennaro) through stunts such as crawling through ducts while LAPD cops can only listen to him on the radio (the book is told all in POV of the detective). Jeb Stuart was tasked to write a screenplay with that in mind (as proposed to him by Lloyd Levin, who had been trying to get development done for it at 20th Century Fox), which would be pitched as "Rambo in a building". Of course, for Stuart, the real big thing to making it a useful screenplay was as he put it, "about a thirty-year-old who should have said he’s sorry to his wife and something really bad happens.” Written with undertones of thriller and the Western genres, Fox went right in with this for a target of Summer 1988, although Steven E. de Souza was tasked with doing a few re-writes as an experienced writer of blending action and comedy. de Souza (a Philadelphia native) went from story editing in television to producing TV to film writing with stuff such as Arnold's Wrecking Co. (1973), 48 Hrs. (1982), and Commando (1985). Lawrence Gordon and Joel Silver produced the film and had such a good time with John McTiernan when he did Predator (1987) for them that he was brought in to direct this film, provided that he put "some joy in it". It was the third theatrical film for the director and a hit that he returned to for the third film of what became a franchise: Die Hard 2 (1990), Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Live Free or Die Hard (2007), and A Good Day to Die Hard (2013).

Everywhere you look and listen with this film is a success on every level, particularly for its genre. 132 minutes never has seemed so swift for a fun thriller that is so crisp in its execution that it could be watched on any day of the year. You could just make a list of people to give credit for it being a success that would seem like a laundry list that goes from McTiernan to the cinematographer in Jan de Bont (himself a future action director) to music cues from Michael Kamen (who initially resisted the idea of McTiernan to have Beethoven's Symphony No. 9) to Stuart & de Souza to a well-rounded cast from top to bottom that grows upon every viewing. Willis (born in West Germany but raised in New Jersey) had exactly two film credits: Blind Date (1987) and Sunset (1988) to go with his most prominent role as an actor at that time in the TV show Moonlighting, which had run from 1985 to early 1989 (the production of the film and the last episodes of the show were an ordeal to film back-to-back for Willis, obviously). The laundry list of people who rejected the lead role before Willis could make its own comedy: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Burt Reynolds, Al Pacino, etc, etc. Willis is basically playing a Western hero that would be right at home for those who like High Noon (1952), complete with that interesting sense of vulnerability that comes through in all of the obscenities and observations. He does kick ass, but he is also one man left to dig out of the mud, and this makes for a compelling action thriller. If it was only him, the film would be pretty good, but having Rickman there to counter Willis with his composed nature of cutting charm and style is the best thing imaginable. He was a Tony Award-nominated actor in his forties that had to get over his doubts of having this serve as his debut into film. Can you think of a better background to go with a film debut like this? I sure can't think of many. He walks through the film with such sharp timing and dress sense (standing out from the others, which includes a former ballet dancer-turned-actor in Godunov) that can even make a solid attempt at an American accent. The highlight scene is a tough one to nail down, because he maneuvers the thriller angle with no sense of drying away from what could've just been nailed-down cliches from lesser actors so well. I think the scene where he is listing "demands" involving freeing a bunch of prisoners as if he was reading them off a magazine that he happened to glance at is probably him at his peak in terms of commanding presence and illusion without turning it into just a routine. Sure, there are plenty of action films to enjoy when it comes to the routines of slam-bang things or choice phrases, but one cherishes those character-driven ones so much more when you really do care about how it all goes down in stakes and in execution. With such time spent to praise Willis and Rickman, it might be easy to say they dominate over the other cast members. But they prove just as special in support when it comes to that specific nature of balance with Willis (and because of the nature of filming and in general when it comes to the rewrites). VelJohnson and Gleason make watching the terror down below matter in perspective when it comes to doubts and fears. One needs those vocal interactions between VelJohnson and Willis to accentuate the struggle that comes in "one vs. the world" to make it all matter just as much as seeing Bedelia react to the dread building around her or a blowhard in relief with the immeasurable Gleason and Atherton. Simply put: you might be able to assemble an entertaining film of some kind even if you split the cast in two. Like an inferno, it burns to a fever pitch that can't be extinguished easily or copied so easily. The irony of a pitch of "Rambo in a building" for this film is that its success would see other films being likened as "Die Hard on a [X]" when it came to an everyman dealing with terror on say, a bus or a battleship. In the end, this is a wonderful film for the season of anytime because it is timeless and effective on every level required, from its lead actors to its director to its sense of scale and sense of timing that makes you remember why you find the need to go back to it every now and then as you would expect from a classic.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Redux: Trading Places.

Redux #328: Trading Places.

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Louis Winthorpe III), Eddie Murphy (Billy Ray Valentine), Ralph Bellamy (Randolph Duke), Don Ameche (Mortimer Duke), Denholm Elliott (Coleman), Jamie Lee Curtis (Ophelia), Kristin Holby (Penelope Witherspoon), Paul Gleason (Clarence Beeks), Robert Curtis Brown (Todd), Alfred Drake (Securities Exchange manager), and Jim Belushi (Harvey) Directed by John Landis.

Review: 

From my review on January 1, 2013: 

What else to start the new year of 2013 but with a film review (I hear one small whisper of yay and more crickets.), and how about an 80's flick (Gee, I haven't done 63 times before. Oh wait...) to start off the new year. (Fun fact: This is my first review on New Year's Day. I must either have been lazy the last two years or I just didn't care. I still think I'm both options.) So how is this film? It's pretty good. This is Aykroyd and Murphy at their best, always seeming to change from serious one minute to comedic in another. The supporting cast is good, and even the one bit characters have a funny line. It has a serious and comedic feel to it, always tiptoeing the lines flawlessly, and having fun. Fun stuff after almost 30 years.

"It took me a long time just to understand the con, what was going on. It's just so funny, it's so long ago now, the chicanery is so much more arcane now. At least in ‘Trading Places,’ at the end of the day, there was the commodity." - John Landis

Admittedly, having young memories of watching a film like this is probably a weird thing to admit when you first watched this movie over twelve years ago when you were barely in the middle of being a teenager. But this was the first John Landis film that I ever watched, which actually was released 40 years ago today. As mentioned before, his viewing of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) inspired him to become a director, and he would grow up to work a variety of film jobs that ranged from mail boy to production assistant. He made his first feature film with Schlock (1973). The next couple of comedy films that he found his way to directing went better, and I'm sure you are already familiar with Animal House (1978) and The Blues Brothers (1980). At any rate, he came across a script treatment labeled "Black and White" by Timothy Harris and Herschel Weingrod (writers of Cheaper to Keep Her (1981), a flop) that was being sold around at Paramount Pictures. Harris had been inspired to make a script based on his experiences with two wealthy but frugal brothers that he often played tennis with that liked to bicker about everything. He approached his writing partner in Weingrod about it with the presentation of two brothers bickering over nature vs. nurture, and research in the commodities market helped shape the film in setting while not making it the whole film. Landis saw the script as one that honed familiar to films in the 1930s such as screwball comedies or ones directed by Frank Capra that dealt with societal issues with distinctly amusing and strong characters (of course with the 1980s, the changes now involve a bit more swearing and nudity, which I imagine irritated the still-living and bitter Capra). This was the seventh feature film directed by Landis, who also served as director for Twilight Zone: The Movie in 1983. Landis worked again with Murphy with Coming to America (1988) and Aykroyd with Blues Brothers 2000 (1998). Harris and Weingrod would go on to do a handful of screenplays together, which resulted in films such as Brewster's Millions (1985), Twins (1988), and Space Jam (1996).

If you think about it, there really is something special about the fact that five of the main six actors in this film (Murphy, Aykroyd, Ameche, Curtis, and Elliott) would go on to receive Academy Award nominations after the release of this film (the only one who did not was Bellamy, who already had been nominated - in 1937!). It always is interesting to see what the more interesting challenge is, comedians trying to play drama or folks trying to play comedy, but I imagine what is more challenging is to make a movie about finances that actually turns out funny. It is safe to say that Landis and company made a worthy comedy with a strong cast and entertaining direction and script that makes it an enduring screwy kind of comedy. Debate all you want over what Landis film ended up being better in terms of laughs, but it is safe to say that when in the right element, it perhaps never worked out any better in distinguished intrigue than this film. The American Dream may involve a bit too much love of money, but with this film, well, why the hell not? Next, you'll be asking if it is a dated feature when not seeing it for yourself for a film that involves folks playing nationality dress-up. Landis also saw inspiration in the basic dynamic within Mark Twain's novel The Prince and the Pauper (which involved two look-alike kids born on the same day to swap clothes). 

The original actors in mind for certain roles involved Gene Wilder & Richard Pryor for the main two roles, Ray Milland for the elderly brother role opposite Bellamy, and either John Gielgud or Ronnie Barker for the role later played by Elliott. Oh, and Curtis wasn't even a preference of the studio, because they had her pegged as a "scream queen". Ameche hadn't even acted in a film since Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came (1970) because apparently nobody had approached him about one (which meant that he had spent his time doing roles on stage and TV). And yet each prove quite amazing in their roles in terms of contribution of laughter that makes any scene count in conviction that really does outline how much it matters to have money in the rat race (regardless of race or class). Aykroyd in particular does a worthy job at playing the role to haughty brilliance that can be both mark and heel in consistent watchability, even when playing a miserable man watching past parties in the driving rain. Murphy, fresh off the heels of 48 Hrs. (1982), is enjoyable with spry timing (he ad-libbed a good deal of his own lines) that utilizes his talents for more than just silly humor, in part because he makes a worthy distinct image of Aykroyd when it comes to adapting to the situation around him (whether involving money or, well, you know). Oh sure, he is a scene-stealer much like his prior film appearance, but that is part of the fun. While it might have been interesting to see a pairing of Pryor and Wilder after the success of stuff such as Silver Streak, it is evident that Aykrord and Murphy were more than ready to deliver the screwball requirements. Apparently, Landis had an interesting time casting the role eventually played by Curtis because he felt it was the one character in the script that he had a problem with (because a "hooker with a heart of gold" seemed a bit on the fantasy side). I think we can say Curtis made the role count more than anyone else would have done, if only because her knowing charm and talent clearly shines through. The power of human nature is one thing, having the means to do things their way is another, basically.

The more established names are just as efficient, because Bellamy and Ameche make the ideal adversaries that you would believe would have both the attitude and insanity required to ruin a person's life over a bet to settle the pettiest of all arguments (look nature vs. nurture could make a good argument for a film, but most don't go around betting money on it). Ameche in particularly seems to relish the chance for a chance at amplified snobbery, and it is evident to see how he made an on-screen comeback with this in his credit. Bellamy is no slouch of course, because he is just as crafty in timing, and the last scene they share involving them at their new point of lowness is a worthy punchline that they each contribute well to. Elliott plays a role of such clear distinction (a butler) without coming off as just another cliche to pass off, and that I think comes from his resonance in caring about what he is doing on the screen on instinct (incidentally, he was known in previous films in a over three-decade film career as a scene-stealer).. Gleason plays a character with loose inspiration from G. Gordon Liddy and he proves quite well in scuzziness. The 116 minutes roll off pretty effectively, balancing its time with its main group to where the eventual leadup to the climax comes off without any hitches that has the task of making commodities something to watch and follow with chuckles. If you have to have folks talk about how the endgame at the market (filmed at the New York Mercantile Exchange with a good deal of actual traders participating) and are then referenced in Congressional testimony about commodities, clearly, you have done something right. It is safe to say that watching the film now has only strengthened my thoughts on it being a pretty effective film from its time that shows Landis and company at their strengths for worthy enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

It really is 40 years to the day since this film was released, so what better way to say a movie is really good than to do a re-review? There will be a handful more redux reviews to come in the following months, so I hope you enjoy them.

Money Talks.

Review #1001: Money Talks.

Cast: 
Chris Tucker (Franklin Maurice Hatchett), Charlie Sheen (James Russell), Gerard Ismael (Raymond Villard), Heather Locklear (Grace Cipriani), Elise Neal (Paula), Michael Wright (Aaron), Paul Sorvino (Tony Cipriani), Larry Hankin (Roland), and Paul Gleason (Det. Bobby Pickett) Directed by Brett Ratner (#012 - X-Men: The Last Stand, #305 - Rush Hour, #306 - Rush Hour 2, #402 - Rush Hour 3)

Review: 
It is not so much that this movie is not good as it is that it is not worth giving extensive criticism to. Does one really need over 500 words to express how this is just a film I didn't care much for? In the four films that Ratner and Tucker have teamed up together for (with this being their first), I found only one of them (Rush Hour) to actually be satisfyingly entertaining enough, and that was because the duo of Tucker and Jackie Chan actually worked out quite well (the same can't be said for the sequels).

In this case, Tucker is paired with Sheen, who can be a decent actor when in a coherent comedy (and occasional drama), but they simply aren't an effective duo together. Sure, you could make the case that they aren't supposed to be like other buddy duos (after all, one is a reporter while the other is a hustler), but I never really found myself wanting to care about what goes on with these two. Tucker (and his shtick) is tolerable to a point, with some likely having more (or less) patience with him and his lines. He falls along the middle for me, but that's not really much of a compliment. He certainly is more interesting than Sheen, who doesn't really have much to do. The villain (Ismael) is fairly generic; the only other interesting supporting character is Sorvino, who seems right at home in this role somehow. Simply put, this is a movie without much fire in it. Why should I care about their attempt to get to sweeps week? Why should I care about the valuable diamonds? Or the random twist involving a minor character at the end? If you have read some of the reviews on this show, you know that I do not try to over-think things in a film or overtly go critical on a film, because what purpose does that serve to you? This is a movie that would likely be easy bait for someone wanting to get irritated while not striving for anything other than just being a piece of entertainment. It's not a movie to use as an example of lazy filmmaking nor is it something worth fawning nostalgic over (even after 20 years), but it's a film that is what it is. I can't say this is an awful movie, and I also can't say I blame someone if they like (or at least tolerate) the film. Take that for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Breakfast Club.

Review #046: The Breakfast Club.

Cast
Emilio Estevez (Andrew "Andy" Clark), Paul Gleason (Richard "Dick" Vernon), Anthony Michael Hall (Brian Ralph Johnson), Judd Nelson (John Bender), Molly Ringwald (Claire Standish), Ally Sheedy (Allison Reynolds), and John Kapelos (Carl Reed) Directed by John Hughes.

Review
This film is a classic that outlines the high school trouble that some (Okay, fine, most) people have. It's a funny film that has fine acting, and a classic tone for it. The writing is good, with fine directing by Hughes. It's a film that's fun to watch, from beginning to end, with many memorable scenes, characters, and all in all, a memorable movie.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.