Die Hard 2

I think that Die Hard 2 is often overshadowed by the original Die Hard, and I can understand why. The original is an action classic which has become an annual Christmas watch for many people, myself included. However the sequel is equally good, and as with many sequels, is much bigger in scale. Die Hard 2 (or Die Harder) was produced with double the budget ($7 million), double the cast, and was released in the summer of 1990. It also doubled the earnings of the original, with a worldwide box office of over $240 million and so I have to wonder where the love for this film has gone. Oh… it’s right here.

We follow ex NYPD Officer John McClane as he finds himself in a terrorist controlled airport on Christmas Eve while waiting for his wife’s plane to land. Once again, John finds himself facing off against this unforeseen threat, although this time with the added struggle of not being taken seriously by airport police. The main villain of our piece is Colonel Stuart who is portrayed with perfect poise and menace by William Statler- whom many folks will know from his portrayal of Death in the Bill and Ted films. All he wants is to commandeer the plane of a foreign political prisoner, and he is willing to hack the airport control tower and crash as many planes as it takes to get that done. With several planes circling the airport, running low on fuel and awaiting permission to land, there are a lot of lives at stake. The stakes here are higher than they were previously, and unlike before, John is not on his own, having to contend with local law enforcement and the airport management. Whilst they do eventually, inevitably, come to his aide, they remain hesitant of his heroics throughout most of the movie. They even go so far has to have him escorted out of the Control Tower when he finally has proof that one of their “punks and thieves” is a professional mercenary. Once again, the law enforcement in this franchise proves itself to be utterly undependable.

We are once again joined on our journey by the selfish and arrogant Richard Thornburg who is aboard the same plane as John’s wife Holly… much to his dismay. You may also know actor William Atherton from his role as Walter Peck in the original Ghostbusters, and his portrayal of self-centred jerks continue to be an absolute joy all these years later. Even as Thornburg is giving an interview on the news, live, over the phone, from the airplane… he is watching himself in a bathroom mirror. The absence of his character from the following sequels, though understandable, is a real shame because I could genuinely watch this character in a fake news show akin to The 9 o’clock News. The other star player is the late Fred Thompson, who portrays Air Traffic Flight Director Ed Trudeau. His performance feels genuine and you get the feeling that his character has been doing this job for years, but still cares about every single person in his airport. As his systems are taken away from him and his planes are left stranded in the air, he barely ever loses his cool. Every person in this or any other level of authority should aim to be this kind and respectable.

The big draw of Die Hard 2 the new setting. It’s often described as The One With The Airport as opposed to its predecessor The One With The Tower. It means that instead of navigating the small amount of space between several floors, John is having to run from one end of the airport to the other, which proves to be as tiring as getting shot at continuously. It also means that while the plot can have the same bones (John, terrorists, boom) it is delivered in a different way. Instead of dealing with these terrorists directly, he at times simply has to watch their actions play out. They have based themselves at a church on the outskirts of the airport grounds, placing them far enough away from the action that they won’t have to suffer any consequences, unlike the previous film where if the building had collapsed it would have killed everyone. John is stretched thin here while the terrorists are barely lifting a finger. Shifting location was a decision that worked for the most part in Home Alone 2 but with Die Hard 2 it proved to be the best of their many creative decisions.

On top of all this are the practical effects, which I could really just sum up with “exploding plane” but which deserve more attention than that. This was the first film to take a matte painted background and to composite live-action footage over the top of it. Although it was only used for the final scene, it would pave the way for the likes of Independence Day, and I can think of no better legacy. There is something about how practical the effects in this film are and how real it makes everything seem. I think that’s because they allow the events to take their toll on John and everyone around him. Much like with Die Hard John is left covered in grime, blood and injuries by the time the credits roll, in stark contrast to today’s action flicks which seem to have decided that their heroes cannot be shown to have weakness. That’s the thing with Die Hard 2. Yes, it’s bigger, and yes, there has to be a small suspension of disbelief, but it doesn’t feel fake or forced. It’s a good time and I really look forward to watching it every year.

Until Next Time…

Signed: Your friendly neighbourhood queer

Home Alone: Lost in New York

The original Home Alone, released in 1990, is a Christmas classic beloved by millions of people across the globe. It has been this popular ever since it was first released to theatres, maintaining the number 1 spot at the Box Office for 4 months. In fact, it would remain the best selling Christmas film of all time until the release of Illumination Studios’ The Grinch in 2018. As you would expect with a movie which made this much profit, a sequel was put into into production by the end of 1991 and planned to be much bigger. This was matched by the $28 million budget, which was $10 million more than the original, and with scenes shot on location in New York City.

We follow 10 year old Kevin MacCallister as he accidentally boards a flight to New York instead of one to Miami with the rest of his family, leaving him stranded in one of the largest cities in the world. Initially, all is well, as he stays at the illustrious Plaza Hotel. But with the return of Harry and Marv (under new mantle The Sticky Bandits) and their plan to steal from a toy store on Christmas eve, it is once again up to Kevin to stop them. I’ve seen a lot of criticism of Home Alone: Lost in New York, with the main critique being that it simply re-hashes the plot of the original in a new setting. It’s hard to dispute that, but I do think that the change in location gives Kevin more issues to deal with this time around. As well as the Sticky Bandits, Kevin must keep his solitude a secret from the management at the Plaza Hotel. Although everything eventually works out well, Kevin is found to be using his father’s stolen credit card and he runs straight into the arms of the Sticky Bandits. He also encounters a homeless woman in the park who he befriends, mirroring his relationship with Old Man Marley in the original. However, this woman is totally alone as opposed to just not talking with her family, which is possibly the biggest difference between these two films. There’s less home and more alone.

I’ve also seen criticisms of Macaulay Culkin’s performance in comparison to the original, and whilst I think it feels less genuine, I think it’s unfair to criticise the man himself. It is now well established just how little control he had over his own career and finances, coupled with his stardom coming literally overnight. What Macaulay Culkin went through, as well as being the result of a system that was drastically unfit for child stars, was incredibly rough, and I think we should cut him a little slack. As for the character of Kevin, I do think there is an inherent flaw with him being two years older. An 8 year old attacking grown men as an act of self-defense is funny, but a 10 year old luring two grown men into a trap just comes off as cruel. He comes across as bratty, and with the change of context (luring instead of defending) he also comes across as vindictive. The comedy itself still works, with the slapstick being implemented well and the traps being just as inventive as in the original film. The standout moments come from the acting of Tim Curry, who portrays a concierge at the hotel and is clearly having a blast with the role. Tim Curry always gives 120% to every single performance, and it is practically impossible to be sad whenever he is on screen. His line delivery on “a cheese pizza” is particularly outstanding, I think the main difference in the comedy- the slapstick in particular- is that it is more child friendly; making the slapstick feel less of a genuine threat. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, although I suppose it depends on your personal opinion. For me, it isn’t enough to spoil the film.

Home Alone 2 ends up being longer than its predecessor by around 20 minutes, taking its runtime to just under 2 hours. This allows for the film take its time to tell a story, and that might be my only issue with it. This instalment takes a little longer to get to the main plot, and it can sometimes linger on a joke for too long. Home Alone 2 is, I feel, not as concise as it needs to be, and it certainly isn’t as concise as the original. I usually don’t compare films, but when it’s a self contained franchise where the plots are so similar, it’s difficult not to. I wonder if the film would have been received better if it had come first, but alas there is no way of knowing.

What makes this film re-watchable is the emotional core. Catherine O’Hara gives another truly heartfelt performance as Kevin’s mother, and much like Tim Curry, it is difficult not to like her. This is amplified by the beautiful score, brought to us once again by the masterful John Williams. There have been essays written about the legacy of his work, and it is well deserved. Once again, the set is adorned with Christmas decorations so it is impossible to escape the festive feel. At the end of the day Home Alone 2 is a suitable sequel and wonderful festive fare. There are several small issues but they are not enough to dampen the movie for me, or many of its other fans. I once wrote this of another sequel, and I feel it is equally applicable here:

There is a marvellous sequel in here trying to get out but, for what it is, it’s fine. It will forever hold a place in my heart.

Until Next Time…

Signed: Your festive neighbourhood queer

Disney’s A Christmas Carol (2009)

Motion Capture doesn’t seem to be such a big deal anymore. It gets used in practically every summer blockbuster, and has been pivotal in creating costumes for the heroes of the MCU for over a decade. However there was a time when this technology was relatively new and its limits were being tested. Most people know of one of its earliest applications, creating the creature Gollum for Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, but few remember some of the following applications. The Polar Express was released in 2004 and was filmed entirely in Motion Capture, before being animated by computer, even being recognised as the first all digital motion capture film by Guinness Book of World Records. The film’s director, Robert Zemeckis, chose this method of production as it allowed for a grand scale on a small budget and would do the best job of representing the original storybook’s illustrations. These same decisions would lead Zemeckis’ to apply this same method of production to an adaptation of the classic Charles Dickens novel A Christmas Carol.

Released in 2009, Disney’s A Christmas Carol follows the money-grabbing Ebeneezer Scrooge as he is visited by the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future, in an attempt to change his selfish ways before it is too late. Disney is no stranger to A Christmas Carol, having adapted it with Mickey Mouse in 1983 and The Muppets in 1992. The former of these is probably the best 26 minute summary you could ever hope for, with the latter being a personal favourite that has already been subject of a review. However, this take is unique in that it is probably the darkest adaption of the tale there is, which may have something to do with how accurate it is to the original novel. There are plot elements here that I had completely forgotten about, because I have not read the book in around a decade (but have watched The Muppet Christmas Carol every year since I was a child), Ebeneezer’s sister Fran makes an appearance, as well as two gaunt children clinging to the Ghost of Christmas Present called Ignorance and Want. It’s much more of a tragedy than I remember it being, and it is nice to be reminded. A Christmas Carol is about a man who needs to be subjected to his deepest regrets and fears in order to change the course of his life.

I think it’s important to remember that when the original novel was published in 1843, ghostly apparitions were not viewed as a lighthearted subject of discussion. Today we are inundated with ghoulish tales from Scooby Doo to Ghostbusters to Casper, so seeing this take, especially in a children’s movie, is relatively refreshing. The colour palette matches the overall tone of the movie in that it is dark and dingy, but when it needs to be bright and cheery, it has no problems doing so. A perfect example of this, and often something that best exemplifies their respective iterations, is how the Ghost of Christmas Present is presented. Here, he sits upon a mountain of food and is only about twice the size of Scrooge whilst the walls are adorned with golden garlands in a room that has tripled in height. As the scene progresses, the room in which they sit seems to hover over the city, allowing them to see the goings on of the townsfolk, and the Ghost of Christmas Present grows older until he has become grey. By the scene’s end, the Ghost has become hostile towards Scrooge, and as they stand in a seemingly endless room, he unleashes the disturbing Ignorance and Want before literally turning to dust whilst laughing manically, in a moment that’s flat-out uncomfortable. It’s tense, getting more so as the film races towards its conclusion. That’s not to say this tension hasn’t been present since the beginning, we are often left in complete silence as if to signify how lonely Scrooge is, but when there is music it is often a joyful and triumphant arrangement of a Christmas carol. The score was composed by the excellent Alan Silvestri, who previously conducted the score for both The Polar Express, and the Back to the Future trilogy. It seems that if your film demands triumph, it demands Alan Silvestri.

So what of this grand scale that Zemeckis spoke of? As previously mentioned, there are the scenes featuring the Ghost of Christmas Present, but there is also the grimy city of London. There are several times that we find ourselves flying over the rooftops, and even from the ground, the buildings look as big and grand as they have ever been up close. This is amplified during the chase sequence with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, which doesn’t feel like it should be here, but ends up being thrilling anyway. Both ghosts, along with the Ghost of Christmas Past, are voice by Jim Carrey, who also voices Scrooge, in a decision that potentially adds more depth to the tale. The ghosts have often been viewed as an extension of Scrooge’s thoughts, but with this choice they seem to become direct extensions of him. Carrey playing multiple voice roles was a focal point of the advertising, but if you didn’t know that (or forgot like me) you may not recognise that they’re all him. Of course, the rest of the cast, including Gary Oldman, and the late Bob Hopskins, are terrific, but there is a reason that Carrey got his name prioritised in the advertising.

The observant among you may notice that I have failed to talk about the Ghost of Christmas Past, but there is a reason for that. His design creeps me out… and… his Irish accents baffles me. I actually think that Dickens wrote a description that is extremely difficult to pull off. I mean, how would you design a being that is both old and young at the same time? As for the Irish accent, it continues to baffle me.

Until Next Time…