Movie Review: DIE HARD

DIE HARD

1988
R


"These guys are mostly European judging by their clothing labels and... cigarettes. They're well-financed and very slick."
-- John McClane

Die Hard is a 1988 action film directed by John McTiernan that centers around a heist of a major corporation during their annual Christmas party. After six months of separation, New York City cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) decides to fly to Los Angeles to visit his wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) and their kids for the Christmas holiday. He goes to surprise her at her office in the still-under-construction Nakatomi Plaza building where her company is celebrating an incredibly successful year. After a short time, however, a band of terrorists led by a German man named Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) breaks into the building and takes over, claiming that they are going to teach the greedy international company a lesson by stealing $640 million in bonds. Unfortunately for them, however, they do not realize that McClane is in the building and will do anything to stop them from their plot.

Obviously, the Die Hard franchise has proven to be one of the most successful action franchises in cinematic history, and with four films - and allegedly a fifth on the way - it's easy to see that they're incredibly popular with their fanbase. However, it all started with this Academy Award-nominated 1988 venture that put the name "John McClane" into the collective public consciousness. I can't quite remember the first time I had the chance to see this movie, but I remember loving it instantly, and I have to say that this viewing only made me appreciate it all the more.

Let's talk about the film's screenplay. It's difficult to make a convincing screenplay for an action flick because, in the course of cinematic history, nearly every action cliché has been tried and tested over and over again. However, I posit that there are two specific reasons why Die Hard's screenplay succeeds. First, the film finds a way to come full circle without leaving any loose ends. There are some larger, extremely important story arcs that need to be addressed before film's end, and your average action flick would address these and hope for the best. However, where Die Hard succeeds is in its attention to detail, coming full circle with even their minute references here and there. In stage production, there's an old adage that says, "If you show the audience a gun in the first act, it must go off in the second act." In a way, Die Hard follows this frame of mind. Even the slightest mention of something earlier in the film is addressed by film's end, and this attention to detail is simply fantastic.

The second reason the film's screenplay proves to be so effective is that it creates very unique and complete characters with whom the audience can relate. The characters themselves are extremely well-written; however, it's up to the actors to bring these characters to life, and I think that each member of the cast plays their part to a tee. Obviously, Willis has made a bit of a name for himself by portraying McClane time and time again over the years, but he brings his best performance in the role here, introducing us to the "shoot first, ask questions later" cop whose gruffness we all grow to know and love. However, I think that Rickman's Gruber is the best-written character, bringing a very precise set of ideologies to the table that Rickman portrays extremely well in what was his first feature-length theatrical release. We're also getting a bit of comic relief from some of the supporting characters (see: Reginald VelJohnson and De'voreaux White) who keep the movie on a bit of an even keel and play off Willis's brand of comedy quite well. Overall, I'd say we're getting a top-notch cast for an action film, which is saying quite a bit.

I'd also like to make note of the film's soundtrack, which relies heavily Beethoven's 9th Symphony as well as quite a bit of Christmastime music. The use of Beethoven in some of the film's scenes accentuates the scenes perfectly, and it stuck out so wonderfully that I had to mention it here. I apologize if this seems like a tangent, so I hope you'll forgive me for the digression.

Ultimately, Die Hard is one of the most iconic and well-received action films ever to hit the silver screen. It currently holds a 94% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, which offers the following critical consensus:

Its many imitators (and sequels) have never come close to matching the taut thrills of the definitive holiday action classic.

I don't think I could've said it any better myself. Die Hard set the gold standard for the action genre, and while there are some films that have come close in the twenty-three years since its release, you'd be hard-pressed to find one that truly and completely surpasses it in quality and enjoyability.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: A
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST

1988
R


"God loves me. I know He loves me. I want him to stop."
-- Jesus

The Last Temptation of Christ is a 1988 drama directed by Martin Scorsese that's based off Nikos Kazantzakis's novel of the same name. It paints a very different portrait of Jesus (Willem Dafoe) than has been depicted in other films relating to the Gospel story. The film starts with Jesus trying to deal with God's voice in his head as he tries to live his life as an ordinary man. As time continues to pass, however, he begins to accept the path that God has laid before him. He joins with a man named Judas (Harvey Keitel) and begins to recruit his disciples and apostles. The group makes their way into the desert where Jesus meets John the Baptist (Andre Gregory), who sends him into the desert to wait for God's direction. While there, Jesus is tempted by Satan a number of times, but Jesus is able to deny him time and again, returning from the desert with a renewed fervor as he starts his ministry. As more time passes, however, Jesus realizes what his true fate will entail, and he and his apostles begin to prepare for his imminent crucifixion.

While I've known about this film for quite some time, I figured today (being Martin Scorsese's birthday) would be as good a day as any to finally take the time to give it a view. I had heard a little of the film's controversy, but I didn't know just how controversial it had been upon its initial release. A lot of the issues with the film stemmed from Christians' belief that it strayed too far from the four Gospels represented in the Bible; however, the film does offer the following disclaimer at the opening:

"The dual substance of Christ - the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man to attain God... has always been a deep inscrutable mystery to me. My principle anguish and source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh... and my soul is the arena where these two armies have clashed and met." - Nikos Kazantzakis from the book "The Last Temptation of Christ"

This film is not based upon the Gospels but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict.

So, if you are able to take that into account, you can see that the filmmakers have at least given themselves an "out" in terms of Christian concerns with sticking to the letter of the Bible.

As a Catholic, watching this film was a rather interesting experience. While I wasn't taken aback by some of the "controversial" subject matter, it did come off as a little bit strange considering how I was raised. Because I know the Gospels' story so well, I was able to follow along with the basic storyline while focusing on the changes they were trying to emphasize. I do admit that seeing some of the sexual aspects of the film was a tad bit off-putting considering my upbringing, I have to applaud Scorsese and Dafoe for making Jesus a very human character. I think I've always had a slightly different image of Christ than is often placed before us. I think he's been conveyed as more feminine than the real Jesus would have been. I mean, the man was a carpenter - at the very least, he must have been an impressive physical specimen. I think that The Last Temptation of Christ found that masculinity and exploited it, bringing a very different image of Jesus than contemporary audiences had ever seen. In his review for the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert stated that the filmmakers have "paid Christ the compliment of taking him and his message seriously, and they have made a film that does not turn him into a garish, emasculated image from a religious postcard. Here he is flesh and blood, struggling, questioning..." I think that's what I loved most about this film. Most other films about Christ emphasize the divinity of Christ, but we have to remember that he was also a man and must have struggled just as much as other men have for all of human history.

To talk more structurally about the screenplay, I thought they did well in making it come full circle. While I did think there were a couple "Hollywood" moments that seemed a little out of place, the fact that the film delivers on the basic premise alluded to in its title is a huge plus for me. My only real issue with the screenplay was that of dialogue. As my readers will know, I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to a film's screenplay. For a screenplay to be good, it has to have a legitimate storyline and plot while balancing it with great dialogue. The issue with the dialogue in The Last Temptation of Christ isn't so much what they're saying but how they're saying it. It sounds a little too contemporary, and while this is a more modern retelling of the Gospel story, it was so colloquially American that it started to take me out of the film after a while. It made the characters (including Jesus) just a tad too unbelievable. Now, I don't think they should've gone The Passion of the Christ with it and have spoken in Aramaic, but something a little more period-friendly might have been more effective.

I did have a little bit of issue with the acting in the film, however. While I have no real qualms with Dafoe's performance (it's typical Dafoe, although it's definitely one of his better roles), there were a few acting decisions that left me scratching my head. First and foremost was Keitel's casting as Judas. I don't know about anyone else who's seen this film, but I just couldn't place him in this film at all. I kept seeing him in Reservoir Dogs, and he proved to be a bit of a distraction as a result. His dialogue was the most prevalently colloquial, and I don't think that really helped his character. We do get a few good performances from supporting characters. For example, Barbara Hershey does well as Mary Magdalene, and David Bowie made a fantastic cameo appearance as Pontius Pilate. We even get a decent, albeit minor, performance from Harry Dean Stanton as Saul. However, this is truly Dafoe's vehicle, and it should be treated as such. While it's not the most brilliant performance I've ever seen, it's still strong enough to warrant your attention.

Overall, The Last Temptation of Christ is a strong, albeit slightly strange, film that's probably not for everyone. If you have strong Christian convictions, I can be reasonably sure that you've going to find issue with some of the film's scenes. However, if you can look past that, then you'll find there's a very strong film with a very strong message to be learned. Is this film going to change my personal view of Christ or religion? Of course not. At the end of the day, it's one individual's personal opinion, and it happened to make it to the screen. If you want something straight from the Bible, watch the aforementioned Passion of the Christ. However, if you want something a little bit different, give this one a chance. You just might be surprised.

Movie Review SummaryGrade: A-
1.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: KILLER KLOWNS FROM OUTER SPACE

KILLER KLOWNS FROM OUTER SPACE

1988
PG-13

Killer Klowns from Outer Space is a 1988 horror comedy directed by Stephen Chiodo. When a shooting star rushes past them in the sky and crashes in the nearby woods, Mike (Grant Cramer) and Debbie (Suzanne Snyder) leave their place on make-out hill to investigate. What they find is anything but a fallen meteor; instead, the two stumble upon a bizarre type of circus situated in the middle of the woods. As is the standard in any bumbling horror film, the two walk into the circus and find themselves in a world unlike anything they had ever seen. For fear of being caught by the circus's inhabitants, Mike and Debbie move deeper into the building, realizing that it's anything but. They find a room filled with cotton candy cocoons and soon learn that they all hold the remains of a human. The two narrowly escape after they're caught by one of the aforementioned inhabitants, and they're soon on the run from - you guessed it - killer clowns from outer space. The young lovers rush to the nearest police station where Debbie's ex-boyfriend Dave (John Allen Nelson) works with Curtis Mooney (John Vernon), an officer who hates anyone younger than himself. With Dave's help, Mike sets out to stop the alien menace before they can take over the town!

Alright people, let's be honest: if you're watching a movie called Killer Klowns from Outer Space, then you're really not looking for anything in terms of substance or intelligence. You really don't have to look farther than the opening sequences which basically set the tone for the film in it's entirety. We have a terribly-written screenplay that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I mean, there's really not a lot to it - aliens invade, townspeople try to stop them - but there's something about this colossal failure of a script that sets it well apart from other bad films. And there's really not enough I can say about the level of acting. I mean, there's absolutely nothing redeemable about any of the performances in the film. You'd think that Vernon, who was so bitingly funny in 1978's Animal House and so good in 1971's Dirty Harry, would at least offer a legitimate laugh or two. Unfortunately, you'll be laughing AT the characters rather than laughing WITH them. There's a very distinct difference.

The clowns - or is it "klowns" with a "k"? - themselves are rather atrocious to behold. And I don't mean they're just nasty-looking for their human counterparts on-screen. They're really just disgusting, but they're so goofy-looking that you have to wonder how anyone ever found them even remotely horrifying? I understand that the fear of clowns is a major phobia for a lot of people - I've never personally had a problem with them - but if a scary clown is supposed to look like this, then there should be no fear of clowns whatsoever. Unfortunately for the filmmakers and makeup artists, Stephen King's It was still two years away. Had they waited to see that film, they might've been able to make a clown that would rival that film's Pennywise (who made my list of favorite villains).

If anything works exceptionally well within this movie, it's the soundtrack. John Massari composed a near-perfect score that's ridiculous enough to fit this film's tone perfectly, but the real icing on the cake is the film's theme song which was performed by The Dickies. I'm embedding the theme song below for your listening pleasure:

Overall, Killer Klowns from Outer Space is an absolutely terrible film, but that doesn't make it also entirely entertaining. This movie easily falls into the category of "so bad, it's good," so if you're in for some brilliantly terrible filmmaking, this might be the way to go. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: F
Current All-Time Rank: Worst - #98
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: RAIN MAN

RAIN MAN

1988
R

Rain Man is a 1988 Oscar-winning dramatic film directed by Barry Levinson. The film opens on Charlie Babbitt (Tom Cruise), a hot-headed yuppie who runs an expensive car business. Upon hearing the news of his estranged father's passing, Charlie and his girlfriend Susanna (Valeria Golino) make their way to Cincinnati the funeral. Afterwards, Charlie learns that his inheritance includes only a classic Buick Roadmaster and some prize-winning rosebushes; they $3 million estate, however, has been given to an unnamed beneficiary. Charlie begins to search for answers and learns that the money has gone to Raymond Babbitt (Dustin Hoffman), the elder brother Charlie never knew he had. Raymond is institutionalized as a high-functioning autistic, but Charlie decides to take matters into his own hands. In an attempt to attain half of his father's estate, he kidnaps Raymond from the institution and tries to take him back to his home in Los Angeles where a court hearing will determine what is best for Raymond.

This film was the big winner at the Academy Awards in 1989, nabbing eight nominations and four wins (including Best Actor for Hoffman, Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture). Although I don't personally think it's the best film from 1988 that I've ever seen - Die Hard, Beetle Juice, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit rank slightly higher - it's still a fascinating watch that borders the lines of a must-see. There are a few issues with the actual storyline, the most pressing being that the film is entirely predictable. We can see from a mile away that Charlie is going to achieve some sort of major personality change as a result of the time he spends with his brother. I feel like I've seen this type of story dozens of times before, so it's not necessarily original. It's just wrapped in a different kind of wrapping paper, so to speak. However, Rain Man works more as a character drama rather than a plot-driven film. It's not about the fact that Charlie is going to have a change of heart; the important aspect is how he reaches that point. In addition, we get to see a change in Raymond's personality. It's not as drastic, but it's enough to be profound by the end of the film.

With character-driven films, acting is key. If an actor can't make us believe the transformation of their character, then the film loses all of its power because it doesn't have an astounding story to fall back on. Fortunately, our two leads are simply fantastic and entirely convincing in their respective roles. Let's start with Hoffman, who grabbed his second Oscar statuette for his turn as the autistic Raymond Babbitt (his first win came for 1979's Kramer vs. Kramer, for those of you who were wondering). Now, here in the 21st century, I couldn't help but recount one particular scene from 2008's Tropic Thunder as I watched Hoffman's performance. One of the central ideas in Tropic Thunder is the idea that so many actors will go ridiculously deep into a role. In the scene, Robert Downey Jr.'s character is explaining to Ben Stiller's character why you should "never go full retard" for a role. When pressed for an explanation, he continues by referencing Rain Man: "Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man, look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'." The fact that Hoffman was referenced goes to show just how dedicated he was to his craft in creating the character Raymond Babbitt. While he does have a couple of over-the-top moments that the Academy tends to love, the real meat behind his performance is the subtlety he brings to the screen. There's a number of little ticks that he gives to Raymond that make the performance stunningly brilliant, and he easily deserved his Oscar recognition.

I'd also like to take a moment to talk about Tom Cruise, the only other main character presented in the film. I know that a lot of people nowadays have issue with Mr. Cruise, and considering his media exposure over the past few years, I can't necessarily blame them. However, none of that should take away the fact that he's a very, very good actor. Sure, he tends to play characters that parallel his own personality, and I feel like his role in Rain Man falls into that category. That being said, I'd easily put his Rain Man performance in my top three favorite Cruise roles, behind only 2004's Collateral and 2008's Tropic Thunder. In this film, he makes Charlie's transformation so real and so visceral that we almost make it right alongside him. I started the film absolutely hating Charlie Babbitt, but by the time the final credits rolled, I wanted to shake his hand. That's saying a lot, to be sure.

Rain Man is definitely a movie you should watch. I wouldn't quite call it a must-see film, but it's pretty damn close. It met every expectation I had of it, and although it didn't grade as highly as I thought it would, it's still a very good film that I'm sure you'd enjoy.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B+
2 Thumbs Up