Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"You take the trouble to construct a civilization, to build a society based on the principles of... of principle. You make government and art and realize that they are, must be, both the same. You bring things to the saddest of all points, to the point where there is something to lose. Then, all at once, through all the music, through all the sensible sounds of men building, attempting, comes the Dies Irae. And what is it? What does the trumpet sound? Up yours."

One of the greatest directorial debuts in cinematic history came from Mike Nichols who helmed this 1966 firestorm of emotion and gripping drama, faithfully adapted from Edward Albee's famous play. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a compelling, powerful character study of four contemptible characters brought together for an unforgettable night of booze, cigarettes, tension and the edification of secrets. Nichols' auspicious debut feature is a microcosm of human relationships in all their arduous complexities.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a moral modernist fable that hits a raw nerve in audiences for its sheer emotional brutality and the utilisation of profanity (as a matter of fact, this was the first film in history to have the term "bugger" spoken in its dialogue).
This is undeniably a love it or hate it affair. The film is strangely riveting and potent, but it won't likely brighten one's day. It's all-out drama from the first frame 'til the last. It'd be fair to say it gets quite excruciating at times due to the lack of variety and the occasionally head-aching nature of the proceedings. It's relentless realism, infused with heavy adult themes and a depressing inversion of the idyllic 1960's married couple image. By all accounts, it's extremely hard to swallow. Even Kathleen Turner (who starred in a Broadway run of the play) wrinkled her nose at the mere mention of the film version. While not particularly enjoyable, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? boasts four fine performances (all of which were nominated for Academy Awards) and the atmosphere is masterful.

This noir-ish drama chronicles one profane and agonising night in the pathological marriage of two tortured souls: middle-aged History professor George (Burton) and his carping wife Martha (Taylor). After a party, George and Martha return home before welcoming another couple for a late-night nightcap: Biology professor Nick (Segal) and his naïve young bride Honey (Dennis). The night soon transforms into a harrowing descent into the private lives of these two couples. Over the course of this night (fast becoming early morning) the polished veneer of the hosts deteriorates grotesquely, and the character begins to crumble both mentally and physically. As Martha becomes brutal and abusive, and as George responds in questionable ways, the horrified Nick and Honey realise they could be witnessing a troubling preview of what their married lives may eventually become.

Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton had appeared together years earlier in the failed epic Cleopatra. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? denotes the finest filmic hour of Taylor and Burton (together, that is). Their searing chemistry burns up the screen. Violent tempers flare and abusive insults fly across the room. The production period was far from easy. Elizabeth Taylor struggled to cope with Nichols' exacting direction and his frequent use of intrusive close-ups to capture every vindictive jibe and wounded riposte as she and Burton cut deeply into each other's private misery. Indeed, it has been claimed that the filming of this picture placed the couple's marriage under considerable strain, and their relationship never recovered. It's powerful watching the performances of Taylor and Burton while considering the production troubles. Taylor is particularly electrifying; transforming from a joking, carping house-wife to an emotional wreck. Taylor earned an Academy Award for her performance (Burton was additionally nominated), while both of them earned BAFTA awards.

Sandy Dennis also won an Oscar for her compelling performance. The shoot was most troubling for Sandy, who suffered a tragic miscarriage shortly after production wrapped. George Segal (also nominated for an Oscar) and Sandy Dennis as the young couple convey an idealism and naïveté that make them emotionally malleable - ideal victims for the hosts. The film is utterly transfixing for its two-hour duration thanks to these sublime performances.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is an emotionally-straining, gripping and poignant film featuring strong direction, precise editing and beautiful black & white photography. This filmic version is specifically separate from the play due to its symbolic camera angles. The filmmakers have the advantage of emphasising the upper hand in a power struggle by employing low or high angle shots. There are also skewed angles and intriguing hand-held camera movements. These wonderful visuals are accompanied by an eerie sound mix and melancholy music.
The script contains gritty realism in its dialogue. It's ugly, haunting and stirring listening to these peculiar personalities exchanging insults and verbal abuse. This is a brilliant film that has a powerful impact on its audience all these years later. The film was vigorously rehearsed like a play over a gruelling three-week period before the cameras rolled; hence allowing the actors to more easily immerse themselves into the characters.

Overall, Who's Afraid of Virginian Woolf? won't ever be regarded as an entertaining or bright experience. It's firmly positioned in a disturbing reality, permeated with seemingly insane characters and tragic occurrences. It builds to a fine conclusion that's beautifully acted and touching. This is strong stuff and it's intensely watchable...but it ain't for children and it's not a film you'll want to watch again anytime soon. If anything must be criticised, it'd be the use of pure drama. It's also grossly overlong, stretching things into agonising monotony at times.

This was the first film in history to carry the MPAA tag "No one under 18 will be admitted unless accompanied by their parent" during its theatrical run. It was also the first movie to successfully challenge the Production Code Office and eventually force the MPAA to overhaul the Production Code Seal with the eventual classification system in 1968.

"Martha, in my mind you're buried in cement right up to the neck. No, up to the nose, it's much quieter."

7.8/10

"Yesterday, we received a call from a vet who had a dog brought in with an unknown disease. The dog went into a coma and a few moments later came to, and was extraordinarily aggressive. He started attacking all of the pets at the clinic. We had to give him several tranquilizers and then put him to sleep. We followed the chip in his ear, which led us to this building."

To most horror aficionados, the words "found footage" will bring back memories of 1999's The Blair Witch Project and the insurmountable hype surrounding this low-budget independent picture. Due to the popularity and cult following of Blair Witch, the "found footage" genre was swiftly established.
[Rec] is a Spanish addition to the genre. It's a masterful mixture of Blair Witch and Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later... that, simply put, will scare the absolute hell out of you! [Rec] is a relentlessly scary, brilliantly conceived, marvellously executed and laudably effective horror film. It permits little respite, thus little chance for you to catch your breath. By the end you'll be gasping for air and begging for mercy. The movie is completely unyielding from the first frame 'til the last. It's riveting and utterly petrifying at a taut running time of about 75 minutes.

Forget Cloverfield and Diary of the Dead (two other recent "found footage" flicks), as [Rec] is more focused and far more terrifying. In Cloverfield a group of party-goers brave the destroyed streets and subways of monster-torn Manhattan. Diary of the Dead follows film students roaming the back roads of Pennsylvania as they avoid a zombie plague. In [Rec] - as in the record button on a camera - the action is confined to a single claustrophobic apartment block and the nature of the threat is mysterious. The film is a deft combination of blatant gory genre thrills and terror of the unknown. Nothing is more terrifying than being trapped in a pitch black room struggling for light as eerie noises fill the air. It's a thrilling, enthralling, captivating experience and the best of its kind. You want nightmares? You'll get 'em for sure! This is the greatest horror film since Neil Marshall's The Descent.

In tradition with similar films of the sub-genre, the entire flick is merely raw, unedited footage as if someone recovered a tape and viewed the contents. [Rec] opens with a fairly soft, gentle prologue as we're introduced to the crew of a late-night reality TV show called While You're Sleeping - invisible cameraman Pablo (Rosso) and presenter Ángela (Velasco). The two will be covering the activities at a local fire station for the duration of the night. Ángela (with trusty cameraman Pablo) tours the station; examining equipment and interviewing the squad. However boredom sets in as emergencies are scarce and the phone fails to ring. The monotony of the situation is soon broken when the team is summoned by a seemingly innocuous call: an old woman is trapped in her apartment. The news team accompany the firemen in the hope of getting an interesting scoop; instead they become trapped in the apartment building that's suddenly quarantined for mysterious reasons. An infection begins spreading throughout the building...and all hell breaks loose as everyone is soon fighting for their lives while Ángela records a running commentary.

"It's nearly 2 A.M. and we're still sealed in this building that we came to with the firemen earlier this evening, to assist an elderly woman who later attacked a policeman and a fireman. They're both in critical condition. The police won't let us leave and are giving us no explanations."

Cranking the tension up to 11, Spanish co-directors Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza utilise every tool at their disposal to frighten and disturb, from shutting out the lights to the sudden menacing presence of an "infected" individual. This is high-quality horror that terrifies on a truly primal level. This is perhaps the correct antidote to suppress the constant conventional horror outings of the early 21st century. [Rec] is already the stuff of nightmares, but the ingeniousness of the film is telling the story using the news team's hand-held camera. This device was used to great effect in the J.J. Abrams blockbuster Cloverfield, but [Rec] takes things to a whole new level. Cloverfield followed party-goers filming a monster attack on the city because they want to document the event. Diary of the Dead used the technique for the sake of using the technique. In [Rec] the characters have a genuine reason to keep the camera rolling - they're despondent, arrogant journalists sitting on the story of their lives. Beyond that, the camera becomes a method for the victims to record their testimonies and they believe it can be exploited as proof such an occurrence actually transpired.

At about the 50-minute mark, the film's brilliance suddenly elevates once again. For the remaining 20 minutes the film is riveting and fast-paced. It builds to an absolutely incredible climax that refuses mercy to everyone.

"There are incredible security measures in place. We know nothing. They haven't told us a thing. We saw special forces, health inspectors wearing suits and masks, and it's not very comforting."

The film is carried by a remarkable screenplay. In order for us to feel emotionally connected to the characters during the catastrophe, solid characterisations are imperative. Regardless of the film's "found footage" style, the sprawling congregation of characters are adequately developed. Opening with straight-to-camera intros for Ángela's TV show, the writer-directors quickly sketch her character - a sassy, resourceful reporter - before locking us in the apartment block and tossing away the key. Playing the realism card, the journalists wish to interview the residents of the apartment building as the night grows more intense. These interviews function effectively as character development. However, the film is occasionally undermined by the sheer idiocy of the characters. While escape plans are devised late into the game, the most obvious exit is finally mentioned. Every so often it's problematical to connect with the characters on a truly human level as they act like clichéd, one-dimensional horror victims.

The shaky-cam style employed for [Rec] has naturally been subjected to bitter criticisms. There are no prologues or epilogues in the form of text or narration. From start to finish, the zombie-type threat is obscured in anonymity. To be frank, text or voice-over explication would subdue the impact. The film is simply intended to be an unmolested copy of a tape recovered at the scene, and this illusion is never severely ruined. The shaky-cam style works effectively as we are deafened by each gun-shot and are shaken up by each attack or bone-chilling happening. The faux docu hand-held technique amps up the single-location claustrophobia brilliantly. Wobbly-cam shots add to the confusion as [Rec] reels out the customary zombie movie clichés: shouting supporting characters, a kiddie zombie and callous authorities failing to do anything useful (who, in an utter masterstroke, are glimpsed only as silhouettes as they tightly pack the building in biohazard plastic).

The acting is uniformly excellent. This is naturalistic acting at its finest. Never do any actors strike an incorrect note, nor are they contrived. Velasco is particularly convincing as the gormless reporter and her subsequent terror is all the more infectious as a result. There's strong support from the surrounding actors, including Ferran Terraza, Jorge Serrano, David Vert and Vicente Gil. The filmmakers keep the dialogue largely improvisational, elevating the realism. The effective filming approach merged with such brilliant acting allows you to forget that this is just a movie. The edge-of-your-seat tension is sustained until the very last second. Films of this standard are few and far between.

"There's something more to this place. Our cells don't work. Neither does the T.V. or radio. We're isolated."

[Rec] is a consummate brew of high-class shocks and verité, generating one of the best horror films of recent memory. This is a rare cinematic treat - a horror film that relies on suspense created by fear of the unknown as opposed to geysers of blood and gore. This is a runaway rollercoaster of a fright flick that's so scary it'll leave you squirming in your seat. From the gentle opening to the shocking climax, I was riveted. Never did I even glance at my watch or allow my eyes to focus on anything other than the screen. Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza orchestrate a number of nail-bitingly suspenseful sequences as well as some genuine jump-out-of-your-seat moments. Suffice to say, nothing in the previous work of the joint directors could have prepared us for the nerve-shredding intensity of these 75 minutes of perfectly formed terror and peril. This is a sublime, well-done little flick that demands to be seen at the earliest opportunity. It's so good that Sony's Screen Gens snapped up the rights for a US remake entitled Quarantine. Highly [Rec]ommended!

"We have to tape everything, Pablo. For fuck's sake.

8.8/10

Maid Marian: "Why, you speak treason!"
Robin Hood: "Fluently."

Even after numerous decades and incalculable subsequent retellings of the Robin Hood legend, Warner Bros.' 1938 production of The Adventures of Robin Hood is still the definitive filmic retelling of the swashbuckling hero. Whether or not you're accustomed to this wonderful 1938 production, you'll discover everything here that you've always remembered about Robin Hood: his fight with Little John, Friar Tuck's rotund rascality, the rescue from the gallows, the romance, the swordplay and even reasoning for Robin's reputation - stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

The Adventures of Robin Hood contains action and intrigue aplenty, intrepid heroes and beautiful maidens in distress, torrents of flying arrows, exciting sword-fighting, and derring-do galore. This film is the paradigmatic blueprint by which all epic swashbuckling adventure films adhere to. Even if this screen gem is cheesy beyond all belief, it holds up as an entertaining, charming adventure as well as an endearing piece of nostalgia. Kids and adults alike of any age will be immediately charmed by the delightful colours, appealing acting, thrilling swordplay and the enchanting screenplay.

"Men, if you're willing to fight for our people, I want you!"

The familiar tale of Robin Hood is here: King Richard (Hunter) leaves England to fight in the Crusades, and is taken prisoner. Richard's brother Prince John (Rains) aspires to take the throne, and under his power-hungry reign he makes life tough for the Saxons as they are heavily taxed. The valiant Sir Robin of Locksley (Flynn) soon discovers that John is hoarding money for himself as opposed to using it for King Richard's ransom. He's a loyal Saxon and a noble man disgraced at the outrageous behaviour of Prince John. Robin is forced to turn outlaw and organises a revolt, taking his band of Merry Men into Sherwood Forest for hiding to create a resistance movement. Robin and his gang do what they do best: robbing from the rich and giving to the poor while working to ensure the nefarious Prince John doesn't take the throne.

No story of Robin Hood is complete without the inclusion of Maid Marian (de Havilland). At first she thinks Robin is a common thief, but his charm and patriotism soon wins her heart. As Robin and his Merry Men stand up against their oppressors swords are clanged, volleys of arrows are launched, and castle battlements are climbed.

The Adventures of Robin Hood may be the most exciting retelling of any vintage legend ever filmed. With eye-popping, gorgeously saturated reds, greens, yellows, and purples, the movie is an extravagant visual feast. Immersing yourself in all the stimuli of Sol Polito and Tony Gaudio's lush cinematography is entertainment in itself. This film is a beautiful banquet of breathtaking images, but it additionally supplies so much more. There's romance, acrobatic swordfights, thrilling acts of archery, witty banter, and an abundance of astounding stunts (a majority actually performed by Flynn himself) - all faultlessly balanced to garner universal appeal.

Tilting the scales at just over $2 million, The Adventures of Robin Hood was Warner's most expensive picture at the time, and every penny of its budget is on glorious display. Directors William Keighley and Michael Curtiz recreate medieval 12th century England with marvellous gusto, from its voracious feasting and barbaric customs to its garish costumes and portentous pageantry. Thanks to Ralph Dawson's accomplished editing and Erich Wolfgang Korngold's inspiring score (both of which earned Oscars), the film achieves an enviable symbiosis of pace and aura. The Adventures of Robin Hood was Warner's top-grossing production of 1938. Its boundless energy, rousing swordplay, superior production values and watchable performances keep it fresh and entertaining all these decades later.

"It's injustice I hate, not the Normans."

The legend of Robin Hood remains a mainstay in American cinema and global mythology, regardless of the shape he's taken. The outlaw first appeared in the poems of William Langland in the 1300s. His adventures inspired medieval ballads and countless tales. He was transferred to the medium of cinema as early as 1908, when there were competing American and British movies. Then Douglas Fairbanks took the role in a hugely expensive 1920s Robin Hood epic. This silent epic left such an impression that no-one thought it necessary to attempt another version. Over a decade later, a Warner Bros. employee sent a memo to studio head Jack L. Warner, saying "Don't you think Cagney would make a swell Robin Hood?". Absurd as it may seem, James Cagney was first in line for the role. When preparation began for this filmic manifestation of Robin Hood, writer Rowland Leigh was assigned to work on the screenplay. It was subsequently substantially rewritten before the final screenplay was finally credited to Norman Reilly Raine and Seton I. Miller.

Along the way, Cagney left the project in a contract dispute. Almost by default did Errol Flynn land what would become his signature role. Even though Flynn professed to have been bored with the character, no-one else could handle a sword, fly from a chandelier, or charm a lady like Flynn who landed the part after playing comparable roles in Captain Blood, The Prince and the Pauper, and The Charge of the Light Brigade. Flynn couldn't be better suited to Robin Hood: tall, slender, dashing, debonair, impossibly handsome, and (unlike a certain Kevin Costner who played Robin more recently), Flynn was an Australian (born in Tasmania) who had lived in England and had developed a proper accent. Many actors from Sean Connery to Cary Elwes (to be honest, Elwes even he did a better job than Costner) have taken the role, but Flynn is the ultimate Robin Hood as he buckles his swashes in classic style. He oozes charisma from every pore. The moment that really crystallises this is during the castle banquet sequence: Robin sits comfortably, enjoying a fine helping of mutton while sharply and boldly responding to the threats made by Prince John and Sir Guy of Gisbourne (Rathbone). Flynn is eternally charming as the heroic Robin Hood as he makes the audience feel young, invulnerable, noble and virtuous. Forget any other actor as the swashbuckling outlaw - to many this is the Robin Hood and it's almost blasphemy to consider any other actor bettering Flynn's performance.

I've never heard many complaints about the film's cast (except for the forgettable and unremarkable Patric Knowles as Will Scarlett, who's frankly the film's only weak spot). The beatific Olivia de Havilland plays the beauteous Maid Marian. The actress was only year away from her most famous role as Melanie in Gone with the Wind. The chemistry between Flynn and de Havilland is noticeably present as well. Equal parts passion and flirty, the two starred in a total of nine films together throughout the course of their careers (this was their third outing together), but this film is by far their greatest collaboration.
Basil Rathbone is the consummate villain of the picture: Sir Guy of Gisbourne (a character regularly replaced in many versions by the Sheriff of Nottingham, who's reduced to Gisbourne's subordinate here). In the film Rathbone is the very epitome of the evildoer and every bit the match for Robin.
Warner Bros. regular Claude Rains (most commonly remembered for Casablanca) is the corrupt and rather effete Prince John, attempting to usurp the throne in the absence of his brother, King Richard the Lion-Heart. Rains portrays the perfect disdainful creep; a sneering snob who prefers his villainy to be carried out by others.
Eugene Pallette is the essential Friar Tuck. He's perfect for the role. Alan Hale played Little John in three different motion picture versions of Robin Hood. Needless to say, he's also quite impeccable. Then there's Melville Cooper as the comically snivelling High Sheriff of Nottingham, and Ian Hunter as the noble King Richard. David Niven was first in line to play Will Scarlett, but he was forced to drop out. Our loss.

When filming commenced for The Adventures of Robin Hood, William Keighley was at the helm. Warner Bros. expected big things from the director. However, as rushes began pouring in the studio felt the action lacked vital dynamism. They therefore brought in Michael Curtiz as a replacement. Keighley deftly handled the dramatic encounters, whereas Curtiz mastered the derring-do. There is absolutely no trace of the awkward handover. The result is a dashing, exciting, impressively lavish and energetic piece of screen entertainment. It's astonishing how fast-paced and jam-packed this flick is: the story is as intricate as a Shakespearean comedy and teeming with supporting characters, there's terrific sword-clashing skirmishes and arrow-shooting battles, and it concludes (as all stories should) with the good guys triumphant and lovers united. It may seem cheesy, corny and silly to some, but this is a splendid adventure that will easily win your heart.
The Adventures of Robin Hood is the definitive, quintessential swashbuckler. Whether you call it a swashbuckler, a costume adventure, a comic book romance or a historical jaunt - it's simply the best of its type. Forget Kevin Costner, Michael Praed, Richard Greene, Sean Connery and Disney's fox...this is the only real Robin Hood.

Other versions of the tale include Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and a clever Mel Brooks spoof entitled Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

"Welcome to Sherwood, my lady!"

9.2/10

"The desert is merciless. It takes everything from you."

George Lucas is turning into an enemy of film. After the atrocious Star Wars prequels, I honestly thought the Star Wars legacy couldn't possibly be additionally defiled. Alas, it is this review's despondent duty to report that this animated addition to the Star Wars canon has managed to be worse than all three Star Wars prequels and the earlier Cartoon Network TV series. Star Wars: The Clone Wars even makes the 1980's Ewok adventures look like The Empire Strikes Back in comparison! As soon as it was announced that Lucas was releasing this animated feature, it smelt like a cash grab - and in final analysis this is nothing but a shameless cash grab. Thankfully, it performed disappointingly at the box office. Maybe Lucas will finally realise it's time to stop exploiting the Star Wars franchise.

Sometimes one milks a cow so extensively that the milk turns sour and undrinkable. Lucas has milked this franchise like this for years. The prequels were crossing over into sour milk territory...The Clone Wars enters the undrinkable milk territory. After 10 minutes I was already bored. Unfortunately, things only continued to deteriorate. George Lucas' involvement was minimal. He didn't direct nor write. Never thought I'd ever actually say this, but bring back George! The script for this film is worse than those written by Lucas, the characters are stale, it's juvenile, the animation is putrid and it's dull!

The first 30 seconds of the movie are a warning of things to come: the traditional 20th Century Fox fanfare is replaced with the subdued Warner Bros. logo. The Star Wars theme has also been butchered. After the words "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" appear, you expect to hear the immortal music followed by the customary opening scrawl to detail the story so far. Instead there's some peculiar, sub-par pseudo-variation of it. The remixed music sounds like contemporary pop music! Following this, the iconic scrawl is replaced by the voice of a narrator. It sounds like a cheesy version of Starship Troopers! As a whole, the music and narration is like nails on a chalkboard. This alone was sufficient forewarning before plunging into the abysmal central narrative... The son of Jabba the Hutt is kidnapped and the Jedi are assigned to get him back. How utterly lame and un-Star Wars!

Remember the unbearable character known as Jar Jar Binks from The Phantom Menace? After suffering every miserable second of character interaction in The Clone Wars, I felt more tolerant towards Jar Jar! Yes, it's that bad! Anakin's new pre-teen apprentice - Ashoka Tano - is the equivalent of Hannah Montana! Not only does this character spend the entire film getting into trouble constantly and cracking bad jokes, but she repeatedly refers to Anakin as "Sky-Guy". And Anakin calls her "Snips". WTF?! After the introduction of this character I foolishly thought things could not get any worse...but they did.

Meet Jabba's son Stinky. Yep, the characters call him Stinky. He's the baby version of Jabba the Hutt who spends the entire film making funny faces and farting. That's right folks...Star Wars now has fart jokes. And Jabba now uses language like "punky muffin".

The credibility of the plot is very quickly damaged. Jabba has a son with no wife or partner in sight? How do the fat slugs even copulate? At least we can be thankful there's no Jabba the Hutt sex scene. Oh, and it also turns out Jabba has an evil, cross-dressing, English-speaking pimp for a cousin who sounds like a cross between Truman Capote and a member of the gay community with throat cancer. Once this character hit the screen, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. For a moment I thought perhaps my coffee was spiked with LSD. But alas, I was not high.

The battle scenes are frequent and on a large scale, yet they're undermined by a number of things. First of all, there's never an ounce of intensity. The battle droids are even played out for laughs. For example, they tell each other to shut up. The clone troopers are also capable of karate. There are several instances when a random clone trooper would transform into Jason Bourne and begin fighting the battle droids in close combat (at one stage a clone trooper punches a droid...then shakes his hand as if to suggest it rather hurt). During the action there are laser bolts and rockets buzzing around like flies, however we know all this artillery won't ever hit anyone important. The intensity is further ruined when Obi-Wan takes a break during a battle to stall the commander by explaining he wants to discuss the terms of a surrender. They're even served soup!
This is unmistakably a movie for the kids and for the kids only. The Force is never mentioned, Anakin's crossover to the dark side is never even hinted at, and the music will make you detest the very concept of music. The grand touch of John Williams is sorely missed. In its place is an incompetent composer who inserts guitar solos during the action sequences! Maybe George Lucas should hire Whitesnake to record new music for the original six Star Wars movies as well...


Star Wars: The Clone Wars features zero characterisation (save the juvenile interaction we're constantly given) and practically no story. The boring voice cast is accompanied by only three recognisable names. Anthony Daniels, Samuel L. Jackson and Christopher Lee are the only members of the original cast to lend their voices. But they're only allotted a few minutes each. Everyone else is pretty much interchangeable. Frank Oz doesn't even voice Yoda. The replacement can only be described as awful. All these actors make you miss the wooden human acting on offer in the prequel trilogy. The dialogue is also dismal...let's not even go there.

This brings me onto the issue of the poor animation. The filmmakers endeavour to make the CG animation appear as unique as possible. The appearance of the characters, for instance, is blocky and chiselled instead of particularised. There aren't any individual strands of hair on heads or any form of facial hair. Instead there's a solid mass that a sculptor might have carved from stone or clay. The animation comes off looking strangely square and very cheap. Maybe that's the point as this movie introduces us to the television series for which, understandably, the filmmakers must cut costs. Nevertheless, The Clone Wars is a major motion picture, and audiences paying big bucks for tickets deserve far better.

Suffice to say, I did not even remotely like this travesty of a film. The Clone Wars is not Star Wars and it isn't worthy to be counted as part of the saga. This is cartoonish to extremes in everything from the script to the appalling animation. If George Lucas disowned Howard the Duck, I'm surprised he didn't do anything similar here. All this film offers is action and non-stop fighting. As I said, this action isn't even exciting. It's dull and subdued, and the animation is too trite for anything to look spectacular. This is merely a monotonous story with repetitive combat sequences that only add to the turgid video-game anonymity of it all.

Okay, so this is a film made for children and perhaps I'm being overly harsh. But the original Star Wars movies were gritty and competently executed. They appealed to a wide audience. Why couldn't this film be created to appeal to all ages? The Clone Wars even fails as a children's film. I've heard reports of children growing restless and sleepy by the time a cinema screening concluded. There is no fun to be had with this film.

2.0/10 (not even sure why I'm being so generous...)

THIS IS A REVIEW OF THE UNCUT VERSION

"All you gotta do is go pick up a kid down in New Jersey, and drive him down to D.C. How hard can that be, huh? Can't be that hard, now, can it? No, gotta be a senior detective. Think like a traffic jam, throwing a car at me's gonna stop me? Huh?"

I'll be frank: my disappointment with the watering down of Live Free or Die Hard was the equivalent of being depressed following a death in the family. The latest plague affecting contemporary action films is the acquisition of the PG-13 rating from the MPAA to secure as much money at the box office as possible. I was unreservedly devastated when I learnt that the long-awaited Die Hard sequel would have the proverbial hardcore violence and foul language diluted for the attainment of a PG-13 rating. Understandably, I was therefore extraordinarily excited when I learnt of the uncut version. I never thought I'd ever say this...but give me the theatrical version any day!

This uncut version merely includes about twenty obviously dubbed swear words and a few shots being touched up with terribly fake CGI blood. There are a few instances when the swear words were genuinely spoken on set, but too often were there occasions when it's painfully obvious Bruce was just thrown into a dubbing booth and asked to swear as frequently as he could. Had the filmmakers lensed a reasonable quantity of practical blood effects and alternate takes that included profanity, this film could be damn close to rivalling the first Die Hard. As it is, this uncut version is a colossal disappointment.

The editor could have at least just inserted all the genuine f-bombs, leaving out both the dubbed f-bombs and the CGI blood, as that would have been the best edit. Furthermore, while I watched behind-the-scenes footage I realised Bruce Willis did a number of alternate takes. These extra lines never made it into this uncut version when they'd fit perfectly. It's infuriating that this uncut version also removed two of the greatest lines from the theatrical cut. One of these lines was replaced with something inferior; the other line was replaced with nothing at all. And the theatrical version suffered from numerous obvious moments of shoddy ADR. It seemed to me these shots were probably originally laced with profanity and would be restored for this cut...but these moments all remain exactly the same. It looks like the editor spent 10 minutes putting together this hack-job. It occasionally looks like a dodgy TV edit!

This is a wasted opportunity...pure and simple. If Fox gave me the entire cast, a few sets and a camera crew for a few days, I could definitely produce a worthy R-rated version. Heck, if I was given access to all the raw footage and an expert editor to give me a helping hand, I'd also be able to produce a more worthy version. Fox deserves a letter bomb for this!
As an uncut version, this deserves a dismal 1.5/5 rating. It isn't a total disaster as it's great hearing John McClane using the term "motherfucker" again (when it was spoken on the set, that is). As a standalone pic it warrants a 3.5 star rating simply because the suspense and tension is still there, as is the awesome action and the clever scenarios. All in all, this is a missed opportunity.

"Fuck being a hero. You know what you get for being a hero? Nothin'. You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah blah blah, attaboy. You get divorced. Your wife can't remember your last name. Your kids don't want to talk to you. You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me, kid, nobody wants to be that guy."

4.9/10

"Hot in here, or am I just scared to death?"

The first Die Hard instalment hit cinemas back in summer 1988. Produced by Joel Silver (whose name is also attached to the Lethal Weapon series and The Last Boy Scout, just to name a few), Die Hard set a new paradigm for action films. Gone was the indestructible hero capable of shooting his enemies with infallible precision while bullets magically skirted around him. In its place was an ordinary bloke who gets involuntarily entangled in circumstances that necessitate his heroics. Die Hard was also set in a claustrophobic location. This formula proved popular as it was soon applied to incalculable other action films including Air Force One, Passenger 57, Under Siege, and so on. Fox enjoyed the critical and commercial success of Die Hard, and within two years a sequel found its way into worldwide cinemas. Die Hard 2: Die Harder was an abundantly entertaining action film undermined by its utter implausibility and the exasperating affinity to the original film.

Die Hard: With a Vengeance is the third entry in the Die Hard series. There was a gap of five years between this third film and the earlier second film. These five years facilitated numerous things. For starters, the clichéd formula was modified and given a substantial spruce-up. The creative team realised yet another Die Hard facsimile would produce a mediocre sequel. So they adapted, and the plot was expanded into a buddy cop movie similar to the Lethal Weapon series.

John McTiernan (the man responsible for directing the original Die Hard) was brought back onboard as well. Naturally, Bruce Willis also agreed to reprise the role that made him a star. This third film also opted to eliminate much of the nostalgia aspect. The film's plot may have relevance to the preceding films, but returning characters are kept to a minimum. Die Hard: With a Vengeance is consequently a radically different addition to the Die Hard canon - but it's a good different and a change for the better. The claustrophobic setting is replaced with the far more expansive location of the city of New York.

In the opening scenes of the movie, a bomb is detonated in downtown New York City on a seemingly regular day. The mastermind behind this bombing identifies himself only as Simon (Irons). He contacts the police and informs them of his intentions to set off another bomb. He explains that another big bang will occur unless Detective John McClane (Willis) completes a number of set tasks. This instalment finds McClane on the booze, on suspension from the police force, and with his marriage in tatters. But he still dons his trademark vest, he's still handy with a gun and he's still wholly vulnerable. Anyway, McClane's first task takes him to Harlem where he meets Negro electrician Zeus Carver (Jackson). After Zeus becomes involuntarily intertwined in the state of affairs, he's forced to partner with McClane as Simon appoints them a number of tasks that take them around the city. The remainder of the plot is a series of contrivances to propel the terrible twosome of McClane and Zeus from one end of New York to the other (stopping in Canada of all places for the climax).

Die Hard: With a Vengeance is more destructive, more exhilarating and far more intense than the previous instalments. Yet it's still grounded in more reality than the second Die Hard entry. With a wider space for plot gestation, there are a wider range of possibilities for stunts and action sequences. Generic action film elements are added such as car chases, interesting arenas for shootouts, and general vehicle mayhem. Entire streets are blown up in sequences that stretch credulity almost past the point of breaking.

It should probably be noted that this is the most graphic Die Hard film in terms of language (about 90-10 f-bombs are dropped), violence, gory deaths (one guy is even sliced in half!) and even a brief sex scene. John McTiernan is of course at ease with the screenplay. He formerly helmed Predator and The Last Action Hero, as well as the first Die Hard film. He knows his way around an action scene, and he knows how to orchestrate this kind of action. Cinematographer Peter Menzies captures the action with consummate skill, making the action thrilling in its own right. As a result it's imbued with great energy. The definitive layers were added in post-production: John Wright's competent editing, Michael Kamen's impeccable music and the booming sound mix. Explosions and gunshots will give a speaker system one heck of a workout! And, of course, special effects are absolutely top-notch. As the digital age was slowly developing, there are a few CGI instances but they're not too noticeable. For the most part the special effects are quite seamless.

The original screenplay written by Jonathan Hensleigh wasn't meant to be a Die Hard film from the outset. When it was discovered that it could easily be moulded into the third Die Hard movie, re-writes commenced. Thankfully, there are plenty of wisecracks and amusing witticisms courtesy of John McClane's badass attitude. Bruce Willis plays the role with such ease that he improvised one-liners while the cameras rolled. The laughs are reasonably frequent and moderately droll. The searing chemistry of Willis and Samuel L. Jackson is off the chart. Their volatile attitudes generate very interesting scenarios. The film moves at an invigorating pace. It encompasses sufficient character development mixed with satisfying amounts of pure adrenaline-charged action: bombings, subway crashes, car chases and helicopter pursuits altogether creating the ultimate roller-coaster ride. While this description would usually fit any generic Van Damme or Steven Seagal action vehicle, Die Hard: With a Vengeance is cut above the pack. The intelligence of the first movie has made a welcome return. There are great unpredictable plot twists and clever set-ups. For an action movie it's fairly subversive.

Bruce Willis gives further weight to the argument that no-one can portray an action hero better than he can. The reason why we love John McClane so much is due to his attitude towards the situations he finds himself entangled in. Here's an interesting fact: the part of John McClane was originally offered to all the conventional 80s action stars. Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Seagal - they all had a shot. The beauty of casting Bruce Willis is that it avoids the clichés. Had it been one of these abovementioned names, Die Hard would have been a clichéd action ride that fell dead in the water after the first instalment. But they stayed away from conventions, and Willis immersed himself into the role perfectly.

Samuel L. Jackson is the ideal companion for Willis' John McClane. Jackson is a scene stealer and he rises above the material. Bruce Willis was reportedly unhappy about sharing the spotlight with Jackson. It's also been reported that Willis disliked the focus shift from lone ranger to buddy flick. Only really die-hard Willis purists (pun truly and absolutely intended) side with the actor.
Jeremy Irons is evil and sadistic and above all memorable as the villain. When it comes to Die Hard, a memorable villain is essential. His crisp European accent and interesting screen persona elevates him above the one-dimensional villain present in Die Hard 2: Die Harder. Even so, Alan Rickman remains unthreatened.
This time the cast is accompanied by such names as Graham Greene, Colleen Camp, Larry Bryggman, Anthony Peck, Nick Wyman, Sam Phillips and Kevin Chamberlin. These precise performances keep us engaged from the remarkable first frame to the last.

Die Hard: With a Vengeance opened a short time following a bombing in Oklahoma City. Needless to say, both critics and audiences were still shaken up from the bombings, and the film (although scripted, filmed and edited before the bombings took place) was treading on sensitive territory. It would be justified to state that viewers were unfairly harsh while watching the film for two reasons. Firstly, the Oklahoma City bombings affected them greatly. Secondly, this was a radically different Die Hard movie, exercising a different formula and a new batch of characters. Personally, I think this third Die Hard film is damn close to equalling the original. It only falls short due to its mildly sluggish pace at times. From time to time, logic is also the film's enemy (falling about 20 feet onto metal without a broken bone? I don't think so). Nevertheless this is excellent entertainment and a worthy film to sit under the Die Hard banner. It provides the rush of adrenalin, the witty one-liners, the exhilarating action and the outlandish stunt-work. It's an endearing, thrilling ride guaranteed to keep an audience on the edge of their seat.

Followed in 2007 by Live Free or Die Hard

"Listen, we got a report of a guy coming through here with, uh, eight reindeer." [shoots terrorists] "Yeah, they said he was a jolly, old, fat guy with a snowy, white beard. Cute little red and white suit. I'm surprised you didn't see him."

9.1/10

"Just once, I'd like a regular, normal Christmas. Eggnog, a fuckin' Christmas tree, a little turkey. But, no. I gotta crawl around in this motherfuckin' tin can."

The original Die Hard is an action blockbuster that rapidly became both a critical and commercial success. The prevailing philosophy of Hollywood movie studios is fairly straightforward: if there's an unexpected hit on their back catalogue, they should capitalise on its success by making a sequel. Sequels are an intriguing breed. Very rarely are these follow-ups capable of replicating the quality of its predecessor. These sequels usually adhere to the same formula of its forerunner while additionally retaining a number of the original characters for heightened nostalgia.

Die Hard 2: Die Harder brings back the popular character of John McClane (Willis): his quip-laden, terse style made him an ideal vehicle to be transplanted into just about any situation as long as it included lots of guns, lots of bad guys, and lots of violence. It'd be fair to state that the screenwriters for Die Hard 2 relied on the original far too excessively. The same formula is exercised (as in the main character finding himself in a situation requiring his heroics) and bouts of déjà vu will occur frequently. For instance: it's Christmas Eve again, McClane is forced to crawl through ventilation shafts again (McClane even states his familiarity with the situation), McClane is out to save hostages, his wife is one of these hostages, and the police are as useless as tits on a bull. It may be looked upon as a blatant and unimaginative facsimile of the original Die Hard to some...but, despite the panning this sequel took, it works!

Die Hard 2 is a straightforward, action-packed, thrill-a-minute, violent, extremely entertaining action romp and an endearing return of everyone's favourite action hero. The seminal rule of sequels is that they should be bigger...and everything is bigger. Unfortunately, due to everything being so much bigger, the size of your suspension of disbelief must also be bigger to compensate for it all. Unfortunately, too, this allows slightly less time for characters to flourish and a plot to be developed. This is still an action film, though, so we watch it to see some action of which there is plenty. It may be over-the-top, but it's charming and utterly exhilarating.
To me, Christmas is never complete without at least one screening of Die Hard and Die Hard 2: Die Harder back-to-back. They are imbued with the Christmas spirit and provide a very enjoyable evening of entertainment.

Anyway, onto the plot: it's a snowy Christmas Eve, and it's exactly one year following the events that transpired at Nakatomi Plaza. John McClane is waiting at Dulles International Airport in Washington for a plane carrying his wife Holly (Bedelia). Also scheduled for arrival that evening is a drug baron known as General Ramon Esperanza (Nero). Esperanza is being extradited to the United States to face drug charges. As a large snowstorm rages outside, a group of renegade terrorists led by a certain Colonel Stuart (Sadler) attack the airport. They disable all the capabilities of the control tower. Now the terrorists are in command of the landing lights and communication with the planes, essentially holding hostage all the planes endlessly circling above, and all the passengers on-board. Unless the demands of these terrorists are met, the planes will run out of fuel and begin plummeting to the ground. The terrorists are loyal to Esperanza and wish to secure the freedom of the General. Needless to say, McClane steps into the equation with plans to disrupt the intentions of the terrorists. Mayhem is what ensues. Also toss in the arrogant, egotistical TV reporter Richard Thornberg (Atherton), a bumbling airport police chief (Franz), Reginald VelJohnson in a brief cameo, and plenty of baddies for McClane to kill.

Grant: "You're the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time."
John McClane: "Story of my life."

Even at a running time of two hours, Die Hard 2: Die Harder is a pulse-pounding action film featuring Bruce Willis as Bruce Willis in spades. Finnish director Renny Harlin was handed the reigns for this sequel. Harlin has had his good days (Cliffhanger) and bad days (Deep Blue Sea). Thankfully, this is one of his better days.
The film must be lauded for its outstanding special effects. Reminiscent of the first film, all the major explosions are done for real. There's green screen and miniatures with very little computer imagery in between. For the planes, the effects are close to unbeatable. Once again, this film serves as a good reminder of the dying art now being replaced in this current digital age. Harlin appears right at home with the action scenes. The director once described this movie as being during his "squib period" when referring to the abundance of blood being spilt when characters are gunned down. At times, though, the action is more pedestrian than stylish. The film also establishes more of a "shoot now, ask questions later" attitude for John McClane. Instead of a warning before pulling the trigger, he disperses bullets without a second of hesitation. With all the action and an extra dollop of gore, director Harlin has taken a literal reading of the subtitle, Die Harder.

Screenwriters Doug Richardson and Steven E. de Souza adequately recapture a number of the strengths of the original film. John McClane is still John McClane. He's tired, pissed off, and is thrown into a situation he doesn't like. While a few of the film's aspects borrow heavily from its predecessor, McClane's wisecracks and witticisms are new material and they're as sharp as a knife. On top of this, his "why me?" attitude remains the same and he spends a lot of his time talking to himself. He's the John McClane we've come to know and love. If you watch a Die Hard sequel, you're obviously looking to see exhilarating action, big explosions, and John McClane doing what he does best. Die Hard 2: Die Harder ticks all these boxes. The villain is one-dimensional, at times it's utterly absurd, plot holes are easier to notice and it's undeniably overproduced - but the film is entertaining nonsense and you can't be too picky when it comes to the action genre. However, with some well-written characters and a moderate amount of character development, it rises above the usual standard of Van Damme or Chuck Norris rubbish. Although Die Hard 2 is occasionally just an unimaginative remake of the original film, there are still a handful of creative ideas incorporated into this sequel.

Bruce Willis supplies yet another masterful performance as John McClane. His sardonic wit is in tact, and he has great chemistry with the actors surrounding him. By the 1990s, Willis had become the essential embodiment of the realistic action hero. He was the John Wayne of the contemporary action genre. Like The Duke (i.e. John Wayne), Bruce Willis has his trademark characters. In fact the 1990s and beyond bore the releases of several Bruce Willis action vehicles. Out of this selection my personal favourites are The Last Boy Scout, Mercury Rising, Hostage and 16 Blocks. An honourable mention to Striking Distance as well. At heart, John McClane is a lone Western hero, much like the characters The Duke played during his golden years. Similar to John Wayne, Willis easily got stereotyped and very rarely stepped out of his comfort zone. But Willis knew what his strengths were, and he played to them.

Also returning from the original film is Bonnie Bedelia as McClane's wife. Bedelia plays the part wonderfully. She is also given the opportunity to deliver amusing wisecracks. William Sadler is very one-dimensional as the villain. This fact lies in both Sadler's performance and in the way the character is written. His proper motivations are never made clear, therefore he's never anything more than a typical action movie villain. He's not nearly as compelling, charismatic or interesting as Alan Rickman's performance in the first film. Rounding out the cast are William Atherton, Reginald VelJohnson, Franco Nero, John Amos, Dennis Franz, Fred Dalton Thompson, and even Robert Patrick who appears very briefly (Robert Patrick will probably be most widely known as the T-1000 from Terminator 2: Judgement Day).

All things considered, Die Hard 2: Die Harder is a solid entry to the Die Hard canon. John McClane is the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time once again, and we're all happier for it. Die Hard 2 isn't nearly of the quality of its predecessor, but it never tried to be. Occasionally one will have to accept McClane's superhuman powers and indestructibility, and the film is very derivative of its forerunner in addition to being preposterous and absurdly over-the-top - but hey, it's never boring. The realism of the first entry is sorely missed, yet there is a sufficient offering to keep any action fan happy. You'll be entertained, you'll root for the good guys, you'll love watching the bad guys get their just deserts, and you'll have the immortal words of John McClane in your heart - "Yippee-ki-yay Motherfucker!"

Followed by Die Hard: With A Vengeance.

"Oh man, I can't fucking believe this. Another basement, another elevator. How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice?"

7.8/10

"Welcome to the party, pal."

Die Hard is considered to be the seminal action movie of the 1980s. Produced in 1988, this is the archetypal blueprint for the contemporary action thriller. It has been decades since this crackling action flick first hit cinemas in summer 1988, yet in the 21st century its influence on the action genre is still overwhelming. Die Hard is the smart-mouthed, high-rise thriller which launched Bruce Willis as an action icon. To this day, the world's greatest action hero (in my opinion) is Willis' John McClane. Willis portraying the New York Cop was a career-defining turn: he mixed comical repartee, action heroics and a grubby white vest to astonishing effect. Die Hard also vastly reinvented the action film formula. It introduced a hero that bleeds when shot, panics when people he's trying to protect are endangered, and conveys uncertainties about his ability to survive. McClane is a vulnerable Everyman as opposed to an unstoppable machine. Instead of dispersing bullets non-stop and regularly raising the body count, this hero prefers to employ his brain more frequently as an alternative. McClane was the lone Western hero transposed to a setting subjugated by skyscrapers rather than rock formations.

On top of this, Die Hard proved that action films could be genuinely original and break new boundaries whilst still awarding a mainstream audience the entertaining action they desired. By contemporary standards, the action in the film superficially emerges as fairly tame. Most films of late, such as The Matrix, depict over-the-top martial arts in irritating slow motion. The fight scenes in Die Hard are far more cramped and sweaty; saturated with a higher level of realism and brutality. These fights depict the way real men would do battle: with hard-hitting punches, struggles and a constant inkling of vulnerability.

The plot is as simple as it is involving. As the film opens, it's Christmas Eve and we are introduced to Officer John McClane (Willis): he's a New York City cop disembarking from a plane to Los Angeles. McClane's business in LA is to visit his estranged wife Holly (Bedelia) who had moved there several months beforehand with their children. Holly is in attendance at a Christmas function hosted in a high-rise LA skyscraper owned by the successful Nakatomi Corporation. Unfortunately for John McClane, the Christmas party is abruptly interrupted when a group of terrorists led by Hans Gruber (Rickman) seize control of the building and hold the guests hostage. McClane is, however, fortunate enough to be in a separate room when the terrorists make their presence known, therefore able to slip away. This consequently inaugurates an excruciating few hours as McClane works to evade the terrorists while also working to conquer them from the inside.

The film embodies all the customary action movie stereotypes: the hero, the nefarious bad guys, the trademark black guy (VelJohnson), the self-absorbed yet incredibly stupid police chief (Gleason), the despondently brainless federal agents (Bush and Davi) and the ex-wife who's still in love with the hero. However, all is fine as Die Hard spawned the majority of these clichés.

For an action movie made in 1988, the special effects (which secured an Oscar nomination) are still utterly mind-blowing. These special effects are still as effective today as their digital equivalent. The high level of practicality in these special effects is extraordinary, and they supply a valuable reminder about the dying art that's being rapidly replaced by CGI technology.
Prior to John McTiernan helming this 1988 masterpiece, he was only recognised for Predator and Nomads. I immensely adore Predator, however McTiernan's supreme cinematic creation will forever be the classic action romp known as Die Hard. The sense of claustrophobia is overwhelming, and we feel more riveted as the tension steadily increases with each passing second. His demolition-heavy vision - astoundingly captured with cinematographer Jan de Bont's lens - guarantees that the film is pure awesome mayhem...ensuring that it's fun no matter how many times one has watched it.

Die Hard also never conforms to the mediocre quality of a pure action fest. That said, there's still a decent dosage of gun battles, explosions and violent shootings. Decades on, and the gunshot wounds are still hard-hitting. Kneecaps being shredded by bullets, glass jammed into bare feet, bloody executions and fierce close combat are among the highlights. Like I said before, the violence probably appears quite tame when compared to contemporary action films, but it's stylish and used realistically. Despite all this action and violence, much of the 130-minute running time is dedicated to establishing the story and developing the fantastic characters. The script is impeccable. There's a great assortment of enjoyable scenarios punctuated with smart and fascinating dialogue. Die Hard also has the advantage of being largely unpredictable. We expect the hero to prevail, but there's a lack of sentimentality towards the characters, hence lending a hint of uncertainty.

The sound effects (which also earned an Oscar nomination) are ear-shattering and realistic. There are booming gunshots, brutal punches and deafening explosions. It'd be difficult to top even by today's standards. The film editing cannot be faulted either. The work of editors John F. Link and Frank J. Urioste holds up under close scrutiny. The directing/editing collaboration is terrific, resulting in minimal continuity issues. The remarkable definitive touch was eventually applied during the post-production period: Michael Kamen's score. There is no distinct Die Hard theme, yet there are countless segments of exciting, pulse-pounding music exclusive to the series. Kamen's musical composition for the film is perfect by action film standards. The intensity gradually elevates thanks to the amazing music. The film's key action sequences are even better with the inclusion of Kamen's efforts. The work behind the scenes is simply terrific!

Director McTiernan also ensured that no faulty performances would slip under the radar. As a result, the entire cast is amazing. Bruce Willis as John McClane cannot be faulted. The smart screenwriting provides Willis with a host of wisecracks and one-liners that are legendary, memorable and quotable. Willis also displays great versatility as an emotional side is expressed towards the climax. As he doubts he will survive the situation, McClane breaks down and lends a hint of vulnerability. The same cannot be said for Stallone, Van Damme, Chuck Norris or any other 80s action genre luminary. Prior to Die Hard, Bruce Willis was primarily known only for starring in the television show Moonlighting and the Blake Edwards comedy Blind Date. For the initial theatrical Die Hard posters, Bruce Willis' unfamiliar likeness wasn't featured because it was feared that this could be a major turn-off for cinemagoers. In hindsight, naturally, there is no doubt that the perennially smirking Willis contributed mightily to the film's enormous success as he traded blows and quips with equal assurance.
John McClane is essentially a Western hero like John Wayne or Roy Rogers. This similarity is referenced on several occasions. When McClane provides an alias, he asks to be called Roy. Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber even talks to McClane at one stage, and asks: "Who are you? Just another American who saw too many movies as a child? Another orphan of a bankrupt culture who thinks he's John Wayne? Rambo? Marshal Dillon?" To which McClane retorts with "I was always kinda partial to Roy Rogers actually". At the climax Gruber then says "Still the cowboy, Mr. McClane? Americans, all alike. Well this time John Wayne does not walk off into the sunset with Grace Kelly". "That's Gary Cooper, asshole" is McClane's response.

Alan Rickman surpasses perfection as the terrorist leader Hans Gruber. Die Hard already had the pleasure of featuring the greatest action hero of all time, but the film also boasts Rickman as the greatest action villain in cinematic history. Rickman's Hans Gruber is polite, witty and sinister. His character is well-written, and Rickman was the perfect man for the job.
But the screenwriter also develops a surplus of other characters as warm as toast. Reginald VelJohnson is highly likeable as the policeman inadvertently pulled into the situation. VelJohnson magnificently bounces off Willis' terrific dialogue. Although VelJohnson and Willis predominantly exchange dialogue via radio, their chemistry is solid.
Then there's Bonnie Bedelia as McClane's estranged wife. Bedelia develops a feisty character not afraid to make snappy remarks - even if a gun is pointed at her.
De'voreaux White contributes yet another terrific character. He provides comic relief and an easily likeable screen persona. I could keep going, but needless to say the supporting cast are devoid of flaws.

At the time of writing this review, Die Hard is two decades old. Even after those 20 years the film is a phenomenal action thrill ride of extraordinary proportions. It offers believable characters, staggering special effects, satisfyingly brutal action, as well as non-stop adventure and tension. Its success at the box office prompted studios to begin green-lighting a slew of knock-offs featuring other 80s action heroes: Die Hard on a ship (Under Siege with Steven Seagal), Die Hard in a sports stadium (Sudden Death with Jean-Claude Van Damme), Die Hard on a train (Under Siege II: Dark Territory with Seagal) and even Die Hard on a bloody big snowy mountain (Cliffhanger with Sylvester Stallone). All these younger siblings of this classic action film follow the same formula of the protagonist finding themself inadvertently entangled in a dangerous situation, and their daring-do is required. This is a testament to how brilliant, engrossing and influential this action masterpiece truly is. Furthermore, I've seen the film at least 60 times in the last few years (including a customary viewing on every Christmas Eve)...and I already want to watch it again. Films like these are simply too few and far between these days.

If you're a self-respecting action fan, Die Hard cannot be missed. If you enjoy watching smart, competent thrillers then this is an essential purchase. Or if you just like being entertained...Die Hard cannot be passed up. I'll be perfectly frank: Die Hard is damn close to being the zenith of filmic perfection. Even a five-star rating isn't sufficient. If this isn't the greatest action film of all time, then it's too close for words. This masterpiece ushered in a new era of action movies, bringing a human quality to the plethora of unbelievable situations in preceding incarnations whereby one man would take on an army himself.

"Yippee-ki-yay Motherfucker!"

Followed by three sequels, beginning with Die Hard 2: Die Harder.

"I wanted this to be professional, efficient, adult, cooperative. Not a lot to ask. Alas, your Mr. Takagi did not see it that way... so he won't be joining us for the rest of his life. We can go any way you want it. You can walk out of here or be carried out. But have no illusions. We are in charge. So, decide now, each of you. And please remember: we have left nothing to chance."

10/10

"I saw your face. It was the face of a depraved, murderous beast. Only two things ever meant anything to you: power and cruelty. You can't feel pity. You can't even feel guilt. You knew they were innocent, but you were crazy to see them hanged. And to make me watch it. I could've stopped you with a gun, just as any other animal can be stopped. But I couldn't do it because I'm a coward. Aren't you glad you made me go? Weren't you proud of me? How does it feel to have begot a weakling, Major? Does it make you afraid there may be some weakness in you, too? That other men might discover and whisper about?"

Director William A. Wellman's The Ox-Bow Incident, adapted from the novel by Walter Van Tilburg Clark, was so far ahead of its time that audiences were turned off upon its theatrical release. However critics of all stripes were smitten, and over the decades the film's reputation steadily grew. The film preceded the Gary Cooper/Grace Kelly Western classic High Noon by almost a decade. This aforementioned Gary Cooper Western is typically considered the benchmark of its genre; the first of a new brand of Westerns that was lean, incisive, and unflinching in its representation of the uglier facets of humanity. High Noon was also responsible for numerous John Wayne escapades, the Sergio Leone spaghetti Westerns, etc.

But The Ox-Bow Incident came first, and it shares the same psychological density and raw simplicity, not to mention a similarly concise running time as the later film. The Ox-Bow Incident was, in many ways, High Noon before the world was ready for High Noon. It's an astonishing tale delivering an uncompromising message about mob mentality. This is no mere museum piece or ancient artefact solely for cinema enthusiasts...it's a remarkably poignant, powerful and entertaining picture that more than holds its own all these decades later. This sombre, somewhat simplistically liberal Western is also one of the first films to condemn frontier machismo. This taut little film eschews Hollywood sensationalism to centre on America's violent core, which is still relevant even today.

As the movie opens, two itinerant ranch hands named Gil Carver (Fonda) and Art Croft (Morgan) ride into a small town in 1800s Nevada. Stopping off at the local saloon for a drink, the two are soon informed that the local ranchers have been plagued by cattle rustlers. A young cowboy soon enters the picture, spreading news that a popular rancher has been brutally gunned down and cattle stolen. The enraged townspeople, joined by a few drifters (including the reluctant Gil and Art), immediately congregate to form a posse to catch the perpetrators. The posse is nothing more than a lawless lynching mob, led by a surly deputy who abuses his power in the sheriff's absence. In the dead of night the mob stumble upon three men (Andrews, Quinn and Ford) embarking on a cattle drive. On the basis of flimsy, circumstantial evidence the mob assumes these three are their prey. A majority of the mob appear determined to see that justice is done on the spot, whereas only a few wish to see the case taken to court before any hangings occur. As it becomes apparent that blood-lust may win out over rationality, the tension mounts in this uncompromising study of mob violence.

The weight of having to make a life-and-death decision weighs on the soul of each man in the posse, and we're therefore compelled to share their burden. The Ox-Bow Incident builds to a shattering and admirably unconventional conclusion. This conclusion is unrelenting in its determination to be both realistic and faithful to the book. It postulates that each man should stand up, stand apart and be counted as a man of individual opinion, even if it means not following the will of the majority. The movie becomes a treatise on the dynamics of mob rule and vengeance for the sake of vengeance. For the film's final half it's utterly gripping and transfixing.

William A. Wellman directed the picture with stark realism that is as sharp as a knife from a script by Lamar Trotti which is beautifully brief with situations and words. Wellman blesses the film with tersely economic pacing and a tense atmosphere. At a brief 75 minutes, the film is brisk in delivering its message with only minor digressions into cheese territory, such as Carver's ex-girlfriend briefly entering the picture. This aforesaid sub-plot is planted but not adequately nurtured. It's slightly detrimental to the otherwise brisk pacing, unfortunately, and it's the most unnecessary scene in the film. Aside from that slight plot deviation, it remains quite on track. Taking its cue from its title, the film is succinct and brief, primarily concerning the one "incident" without wasting energy on superfluous characterisations or extraneous action. It's all for the best, and is all the more effective for it.

To cut costs (the film was made in the grim early days of WWII, thus budgets needed to be as small as possible) the movie was shot on sets. For the most part this technique works extraordinarily well, increasing the tone of claustrophobia. At other times, such as the aftermath of the incident, it feels a tad artificial and phoney.

The Ox-Bow Incident bears an unmistakable affinity to film noir, not only due to the moody shadowy photography as there's also a gallery of grotesques that inhabit this decidedly uncelebratory depiction of the frontier spirit. After a gloomy climax that refuses to let anyone off the hook, The Ox-Bow Incident concludes in a very non-Hollywood fashion. Gil and the wounded Art limp out of town, passing the same draggy dog that was visible when they initially rode in. William A. Wellman also adds a masterly wrinkle to the sentimental scene of Fonda reading a letter by obscuring Fonda's eyes with a hat brim. The director did this habitually when he wanted an audience to concentrate on a message as opposed to a personality. Wellman's direction also circumvents the typical Western clichés. He keeps the action enclosed in a small setting where most directors would broaden the horizons in favour of scope and scale. A subtle yet effective melancholy tune accompanies the visuals.

Leading the cast is recognised actor Henry Fonda who turns in a superlative performance. His lackadaisical persona melds interestingly with his character's ornery temperament to generate a moral ambiguity. This ambiguity clouds his character's allegiances in the "vengeance vs. justice" debate in mystery until the moment when he's strained to overtly choose sides. Fonda's Gil Carver is no solid, gallant, upright citizen. He's an errant cuss who gets himself entangled in a bar fight moments after arrival at the small town. Yet he's one of the few characters in the story who has a conscience and uses it. In a way, this is a peculiar foreboding of his role in the 1957 film 12 Angry Men.

Lamar Trotti's screenplay torments us with hints of mystery about the three men who stand accused; it is only through the heart-wringing performance of Dana Andrews, who admirably outshines his co-stars, that there's a definite sense of the trio's innocence. Andrews as the bewildered and helpless leader of the doomed trio exudes character and integrity, and does much to make the film an overpoweringly distressing tragedy. It's impossible not to feel for Andrews' character: heartbroken over the probability of his wife and young children being left to fend for themselves in a rough frontier if he is hanged.

An excellent complementary performance by Anthony Quinn as one of the suspected murderers is another highlight. Quinn's brash confidence and fearlessness as a Mexican outlaw (operating under an alias) undermines any faith we have in the trio's innocence. Francis Ford (who got his son John into the industry) is amazing as a disorientated old man unable to comprehend what's actually happening. Frank Conroy's performance of the demagogue (donning a Confederate officer's uniform) is authoritative and utterly stunning. Harry Davenport and Leigh Whipper are more emotionally affecting as champions of the right. Mary Beth Hughes was pulled in for one brief, ironic scene with Fonda which gives a justification for his mood. The rest of the cast can take bows for their small but impressive roles. All these actors have their moments to shine towards the climax when something tragic is revealed. There are emotive expressions of guilt in each man, effectively conveying the lightning bolt they've all be hit with. These precise performances, coupled with a brilliant, tightly-written script, keep our hearts and minds at constant war with one another.

There's something extraordinary about the way in which The Ox-Bow Incident places joint emphasis on its characters and storytelling, as opposed to the simple genre norms John Wayne films adhere to. This is an ugly study in mob violence, unrelieved by any human clemency save the vain reproach of a small minority and mild post-lynching remorse. In 75 minutes, the film exhibits most of the baser inadequacies of men - cruelty, blood-lust, ruffianism, pusillanimity and sordid conceit. It offers a catastrophic infringement of justice with little repercussion to sweeten the bitter draught. The Ox-Bow Incident is a top-tier Western as powerful, unsentimental and thought-provoking as it was decades ago. The film won't brighten your day...but for sheer stark realism it's hard to beat. The film is a quietly compelling argument against the human tendency towards irrational behaviour. This is a true landmark movie, one that delivers a worthwhile message: betray your conscience and it will haunt you forever.

"My dear Wife, Mr. Davies will tell you what's happening here tonight. He's a good man and has done everything he can for me. I suppose there are some other good men here, too, only they don't seem to realize what they're doing. They're the ones I feel sorry for. 'Cause it'll be over for me in a little while, but they'll have to go on remembering for the rest of their lives. A man just naturally can't take the law into his own hands and hang people without hurtin' everybody in the world, 'cause then he's just not breaking one law but all laws. Law is a lot more than words you put in a book, or judges or lawyers or sheriffs you hire to carry it out. It's everything people ever have found out about justice and what's right and wrong. It's the very conscience of humanity. There can't be any such thing as civilization unless people have a conscience, because if people touch God anywhere, where is it except through their conscience? And what is anybody's conscience except a little piece of the conscience of all men that ever lived? I guess that's all I've got to say except kiss the babies for me and God bless you. Your husband, Donald."

9.1/10

General Broulard: "Colonel Dax, you're a disappointment to me. You've spoiled the keenness of your mind by wallowing in sentimentality. You really did want to save those men, and you were not angling for Mireau's command. You are an idealist - and I pity you as I would the village idiot. We're fighting a war, Dax, a war that we've got to win. Those men didn't fight, so they were shot. You bring charges against General Mireau, so I insist that he answer them. Wherein have I done wrong?"
Colonel Dax: "Because you don't know the answer to that question, I pity you."

The bitter, numbing inanity of war and the exploitation of military ranks is made brazenly obvious in Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory. Vehemently an anti-war feature, this compelling masterpiece is a piercing attack on the military hierarchy, and a film that proved so controversial it was banned in France until 1975 and unreleased in Spain under Franco's rule.

This was Kubrick's fourth feature film (previously he'd directed 1953's Fear and Desire, 1955's Killer Kiss, and 1956's The Killing), but this blistering indictment of military politics made a name for the young director. What's so startling - and impressive - about Kubrick's storytelling in Paths of Glory is the cold, matter-of-fact manner in which the film unfolds. As the anti-war statement develops, all rage and dismay becomes targeted at war itself instead of individuals. The product is an unforgettable, enthralling landmark war movie; a significant lesson in humanity and social incompetence. Decades later the power and intensity of the film still resonates.

Paths of Glory explores the whole spectrum of misguided personalities at times of war. The setting is 1916, during the latter period of World War II. The French and German armies are dug into trenches in a hopeless stalemate. The impatient French General Staff pass an order to take a strategic German hill known as the "Anthill". This would be an obvious suicidal charge, yet the Generals are all-too-willing to risk the lives of their soldiers. A reluctant Colonel Dax (Douglas) is handed the assignment. Despite the knowledge that possibly 60% of his soldiers will die, he has little choice. As Dax leads his men, the chaos and mayhem results in the soldiers becoming pinned down in dangerous territory. The mission is an utter failure. The furious generals are embarrassed about the defeat, and cover up their abject blunder by selecting scapegoats: three soldiers from Dax's regiment who'll be court marshalled for cowardice under fire and made an example of.

Inspired by Humphrey Cobb's book as well as a string of real newspaper articles, Stanley Kubrick's 87-minute Paths of Glory briskly moves from a misconceived attack to the courtroom trial following it. The powerful Generals depicted in the film are merely corrupt, self-centred marionettes strung up to participate in a game of profligacy and opportunism at the most inappropriate of times. In the somewhat short but gripping attack sequence, Kubrick manages to portray the carnage and the horrors of war in a succession of remarkable images that set the stage for the events to follow. The film views war in terms of power. Those higher up in the ranks have the power to simply court marshal any random soldier. How can any man who isn't standing side-by-side with these men at the front lines possess the arrogance to accuse them of cowardice? As the story unfolds, this question is literally screaming at the viewer. The truth of the matter is on the screen for all to see, yet the Generals play the ignorance card. All we can hope is that sanity will somehow prevail. The underlying subtext concerns the abuse of power and the consequences of not standing against it.

Paths of Glory is astonishingly photographed. The captivating black and white imagery makes this one of the most memorable and authentic-looking anti-war films in the history of cinema. Even during the early days of his career, Stanley Kubrick's camera movements are graceful and masterful. The courtroom scene is particularly stunning and admirably unconventional. Whenever we expect Kirk Douglas to deliver an amazing, long, inspirational speech, the Generals counter these possibilities. At 87 minutes, the film is extremely concise and to the point. By circumventing the clichés and challenging an audience's expectation of a happy ending, the film is all the more devastating and compelling.

There's an assortment of top-notch performances from head to toe. Kirk Douglas is brilliant as Colonel Dax. He's the only high-ranking character in the film with a hint of veracity. As the Generals defy respect for human life with their orders, Dax stands up to them. Even when offered a promotion he bluntly refuses in a series of insults. Douglas is energetic and charismatic. It is his wisdom, sincerity and determination that make the intolerable injustice we witness so despicable. In Douglas' Dax we see all the qualities of a true hero without glorifying the character in any way.
George Macready is outstanding as the pompous, twisted, fictional French commander General Paul Mireau who possesses not an ounce of sympathy for his embattled troops. In the face of a shell-shocked soldier he offers nothing but blunt insults and orders to have the man removed from the regiment. His character also wilfully orders a suicide mission, and then in embarrassment he perversely finds a scapegoat to use in order to direct the blame away from him. Macready is authoritative and, frankly, quite terrifying.
There is only one single flaw in the film which unfortunately reverberates to other areas: lack of French accents. Soldiers are of different accents, such as American. It destroys one aspect of the film's authenticity. The fact that the soldiers are supposedly French is therefore only evident in the dialogue mentioning it.

Overall, Paths of Glory is a timeless and compelling masterpiece, and certainly one of Stanley Kubrick's best movies. Anti-war films of this calibre are few and far between in this current age of cinema. Unfortunately, this is a film seen by relatively few. It even missed out on a spot on the AFI Top 100! Classics are far too unfairly overlooked in this day and age. With a brilliant ensemble cast, enthralling cinematography and an effective script, Paths of Glory is an outstanding essay on the madness of conflict, both in war and in politics. The terse and remorseless final flourish is one of the most emotionally devastating endings in Kubrick's career. You won't soon forget it.

"I apologize... for not being entirely honest with you. I apologize for not revealing my true feelings. I apologize, sir, for not telling you sooner that you're a degenerate, sadistic old man. And you can go to hell before I apologize to you now or ever again!"

8.9/10