The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Uanswered Questions and The Problem of Serialized Storytelling in Film

Just this week, Alex Kurtzman, co-writer, along with frequent collaborator Bob Orci, of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, went on record that the film will address the questions left unresolved by last year's controversial reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man:

“It’s interesting because the first movie asks all these questions and what I loved about it in so many ways is that it didn’t answer them. Part of what we were drawn to and intrigued by was wanting to know the answers to a lot of those questions.

“The villains emerge from a lot of unanswered questions at the end of that movie and none of them are random at all, they are all tied together by a theme, an idea, and I think they come from our curiosity about what was going on in the life of Peter Parker and his parents.”

My chief criticism of The Amazing Spider-Man was it seemed about concerned with setting up plotlines for future films rather than just being a standalone, so I can't say I share the same enthusiasm for what it was doing. The film's marketing, and the film's first act, suggested the main drive of the film was to be Peter Parker's (Andrew Garfield) investigation in to why his parents disappeared when he was a child, how Peter's father was connected to Peter's eventual gaining of spider-like powers, as well as how Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans) relationship to Peter's parents. But the film pretty much drops these plot threads halfway through the way, only to remind us, in a mid credits stinger involving Connors and a mysterious man played by Michael Masse, that "Hey, come back for the sequel if you want to get any answers."



I understand what the filmmakers, most notably director of Amazing 1 & 2, and most likely 3, Marc Webb- they want to achieve what Marvel Studios has done and continues to do among its franchises, which is bringing expansive, comic book style continuity to the big screen- expect in the case of The Amazing Spider-Man franchise, the want to create an expansive universe in a singular franchise. It's an ambitious and admittedly exciting idea. There's 50 years of Spider-Man continuity to draw from, with almost limitless possibilities, and it appears this franchise is leading up to Sinister Six film, a reverse-Avengers, if you will.

But this brings up the difficulties of telling a serialized narrative in film. When you sit down to watch a film, even a film like The Amazing Spider-Man, where you know it's going to be the first film in a franchise (the second film was announced well before the first film hit theatres), as well as mostly a retelling of the Spider-Man origin story, you still expect a mostly standalone film. But I don't think The Amazing Spider-Man was designed to be a standalone film. In many ways, it mostly serves as a 2 hour pilot. This is not a pejorative swipe at TV mind you, I'm just highlighting how I think this film doesn't work as a film. I don't feel Peter has a character arc or that the film has a firm dramatic arc regarding its stories. This would work if the film was a pilot for a TV series, or the first few issues of a new Spider-Man comic. But it's neither of those things. It's a film, but it's not thematically well rounded or satisfying on its own terms the way a film, particularly an origin story, which in most superhero's case, especially Spider-Man's, are usually dramatically very pure and straightforward.

Compare The Amazing Spider-Man to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, which, as the title suggests, is about Batman becoming Batman. It's focused almost entirely on Bruce Wayne's childhood, the death of his parents, his training and establishment as a vigilante in Gotham City, fighting corruption and forming a relationship with Jim Gordon, one of the few good cops in the city. But while a film like this could feel like just a set-up, which in some ways it is, Batman Begins still works very well as a standalone film about how someone goes from a child crouching over the bodies of his dead parents, to a figure of hope and fear. When that Joker card is revealed, it works as both an organic lead in to the next film as well as a great moment by itself, even if we didn't get a sequel. And the film genuinely feels mythic, despite Nolan' goal to set the film in a more stylistically and visually realistic universe than the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series. I feel The Amazing Spider-Man lacks that kind of mythic nature, and while I think the film wants to be the Batman Begins of the Spider-Man, and while I think in some respects it is successful in that respect, I don't feel it works as a standalone film the way Batman Begins does. And going back to Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film in 2002, even that film, while leaving room open for a sequel, ends on a strong not that concludes Peter's (Tobey Maguire) character arc.

Now, I'm not saying serialized storytelling can't work in film. The Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, and Star Wars made it work, and serialized storytelling, in whatever medium, can be rewarding. But I feel The Amazing Spider-Man wasn't as interesting a film as it could've been. The film had such rich thematic potential in regards to the mystery surrounding Peter's parents, how his father potentially gave birth to Spider-Man, and Peter's relationship to a man (Connors) who knew his parents and may have taken part in their murders (?) But the film doesn't truly explore this material, I think. To be fair, this film did suffer from post-production tinkering by Webb and/or the studio, which resulted in several scenes being cut out, one in which makes clear the fate of Dr. Ratha (Irrfan Khan).

I'm glad Kurtzman  says the villains will be tied to the themes and questions of the first film. One of the things I really liked about Nolan's Batman Trilogy was how the villains were representations of the each film's themes. Of course, we know Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper) has a connection to Peter's parents, though I assume he won't become the Green Goblin until the very end of this film. I wonder how Max Dillon/Electro (Jamie Foxx) will be connected to Peter, since he seems more thematically and emotionally connected to Spider-Man than Peter. I'm interested to see how the film juggles its multiple plot threads and relationships, including the continuing relationship between Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), the reappearance of Peter's childhood friend Harry Osborn, (Dan DeHaan), Norman's son, as well Felicity Jones' still mysterious role as the "Goblin's girlfriend."- Harry or Norman? I'm still a little disappointed that Shailene Woodley's minor role as Mary Jane Watson has been cut and I hope she comes back for the third film.

While it's nice that Kurtzman has implied questions will be answered, I think the film should be more than just answering questions, just as how the first film was as its best when it wasn't just asking questions. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 needs to explore what these questions mean for Peter and the other characters, as well what consequences the answers will have. It needs to blow us away emotionally, visually and thematically. I hope it does. The superhero genre and this franchise has a lot of potential, and it'd be great if this film fulfilled that potential

The Essential Films: "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?"

A Series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential viewings for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me

I don’t think a film like Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? would be possible in today’s Hollywood. Or, a better way to put it, I don’t think it would have the same effect. Here is a film that stars two Hollywood titans who’s off screen relationship so affects our reaction to onscreen events that it’s hard to think of two actresses who could pack so much personal subtext in to their performances and our reading of the film. Bette Davis and Joan Crawford really did hate each other in real and no doubt it must have been a joy for Davis to psychologically and physically torture her. And there is a certain twisted pleasure the audience gets from this.

The film begins in 1917 where Baby Jane Hudson is a famous child star on the Vaudeville stage. As she gets older, she begins to appear in films but in an ironic twist of fate, it is her sister Blanche Hudson, who had been in her sister’s shadow when they were children, becomes the more popular and beloved star. One night Jane drives her car in to Blanche, crippling her. The rest of the film takes place in 1962- Blanche now spends her life in a wheelchair in a house being taken care of by her sister.  

I feel that how you approach a film is important to judging it fairly. If one goes in to this film expecting something that wants to be taken completely seriously, then one may start criticizing this film as too silly or “hammy” to be taken seriously. But I think the key to enjoying the film is to understand that the film is largely a black comedy, as well as a psychological thriller. The film, I believe, wants you to laugh at the relationship between the Hudson sisters. What’s miraculous about the film is how it both has this darkly humorous edge while still working as a compelling, tragic and empathetic psychological thriller. Outside of Alfred Hitchcock, I don’t think there are many directors who can pull off this feat- but director Robert Aldrich, director of the great film noir, Kiss Me Deadly,  is able to both play much of the film for sinister laughs, while still creating a genuine sense of fear and suspense that gets us invested in the story. He also finds the tragedy in this story. Both Jane and Blanche used to have it all, now Blanche is crippled and Jane is mentally sick, still in many ways a little girl who likes to torment her sister and who still clings on to her former fame as a child star.

I think Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? would make a great double bill with Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard, made 12 years earlier. Both films deal with former actresses, Norma Desmond and Jane Hudson who become disillusioned and bitter when they’re no longer famous. Sunset Boulevard is more of a satire but both films show a dark and twisted side of show business, where people who never knew anything but fame shrink in to insecurity. When Jane goes to put out an advertisement for a piano player to help her revive her act she mentions that she’s Baby Jane Hudson, but the younger men at the office don’ t have the slightest idea who she is, though she doesn’t catch on to this fact. Norma and Jane both live in almost gothic mansions, shut away from society. Norma’s only companion is her former husband and director, now servant, Max Von Mayerling. Jane only really has Blanche, who despite being treated poorly, does care about Jane’s health. Both Norma and Jane also try to revive their careers through the help of a younger man- William Holden’s screenwriter Joe Gillis who happens upon Norma’s mansion- and Victor Buono’s piano player Edwinn Flagg. Both films eventually end with Norma and Jane completely detached from reality, convinced they still have an audience.

Blanche has a firmer grasp on reality. I think this has to do with the fact Blanche became famous later in her life than Jane, who was shoved in to the spotlight when she was only a child. Blanche had enough distance from the craziness of Jane’s life that she was able to understand the pressure of being famous even before she became a star. The fact that Blanche became a bigger star than Jane is a big reason for Jane’s bitterness and hatred towards Blanche. That and the fact she has to carry around the guilt of crippling her sister. At the end of the film we learn that it was Blanche who crippled herself when she tried to run over a very drunk Jane. “You mean all this time, we could’ve been friends?” Jane asks. Like a lot of the film, it’s both funny and tragic. These two sisters, due to their upbringing and careers never really had the chance to have a normal, healthy relationship.

Aldrich’s restrained visual style contrasts well with the more macabre elements of the story. If his visual style was too assertive, we’d probably feel smothered by the camp horror.  Like Kiss Me Deadly, Aldrich finds a tone that is both cold but still absorbing. I love a lot of his camera angles and way he shoots Davis and Crawford. Just through their close-ups. Davis is grotesque, covered up in make-up that makes her look like a living doll- creating a link between Jane and the Baby Jane dolls from her time as a child star, one which she still keeps. Crawford is haggard, but we can still see the beauty that made Blanche, as well as Crawford, a star. This film uses footage from Davis and Crawford’s actual films, so it’s very impactful seeing the younger Davis and Crawford in this film and having the contrast between their younger and older selves. When we first see the older Blanche, she’s watching one of her older movies. There’s an added poignancy to the scene since Crawford is literally watching her younger self.

The title of the film asks where Baby Jane went. And the answer may be that nothing ever happened to her, she never grew up, never moved on or went away. Jane is still that little girl, stuck in a twisted kind of arrested development.   Her dancing on the beach at the end suggests that even if Jane had moved in to adulthood, has no regressed back in to the child Baby Jane. It’d be simplistic to say this is a just a cynical film about show business/Hollywood, but I do feel the film is a tragedy about that world. As in Kiss Me Deadly, Aldrich puts us in a reality that is a nightmare version of our own, but finds thematic and, in the case of this film, emotional truths that allow us to connect with the stories. Jane and Blanche represent the broken lives of two women who, in a better world, could’ve been best friends.    

I Write On Water What I Dare Not Say: Some Thoughts on Terrence Malick's "To The Wonder"

As I was watching Terrence Malick's latest film To The Wonder the other night, it occurred to me that, love him or hate, Malick is among the handful of directors, past and present, that has completely infused himself in to every fibre of his films. It's not just that he has a particular style, but that's there not a single moment in this film, or his previous few films, that he's not present. He's there in every image, camera movement, line of dialogue and even performance. Wes Anderson is similar in that regard, and maybe even Stanley Kubrick but I can't think of many directors that have become so much part of their films. I think it's hard to review a Malick film, particularly now, since  his films exist outside any typical narrative structure- so this will be more of a "thoughts on" piece rather than a "good or bad" summary. Overall, I liked the film and maybe even loved it. While it's not as monumental a work as his previous film, The Tree of Life, it's a lovely and often beautiful film, telling a simple but universal film about finding and losing love.

The film tells the story of Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Olga Kurylenko) who meet in France and move to Oklahoma to start their life together. Complications in their relationship leads to Neil and reconnecting with his childhood sweetheart Jane (Rachel McAdams). A parallel storyline focuses on Father Quintana (Javier Bardem), a priest struggling with his faith.

Malick tells these stories, as to be expected, through impressionistic imagery and hushed voiceovers. But in this film I found that Malick was moving even further away from dialogue, crafting something focused very much on the physicality and movements of the actors- particularly with Kurylenko and McAdams. I don't think either of these women have ever looked more gorgeous. By just looking at them, watching them move, their beauty really shines through in a pure way.

Journalist and filmmaker Bilge Ebiri wrote a piece interpreting the film as a dance, a ballet. All one has to do is look at Kurylenko and her movements in the film and it becomes clear what Ebiri is talking about and what Malick is trying to achieve. Moreover,  I feel that Malick isn't just trying to create a ballet but he's fascinated in taking actors we recognize and using them in a fashion where their usual stature as an actor is stripped down to something quite simple. Think of Sean Penn in The Tree of Life. In this film, Affleck is just a normal man, not the hero of Argo or complicate bank robber of The Town.

This is the shortest gap between movies for Malick, who's taken up to 20 years between films. While it's exciting to get a new Malick film so soon after The Tree of Life, that film was such a bold and visionary piece of work, a film which could possibly be deemed a landmark film, that To The Wonder seems somewhat anti-climatic in comparison. Even if there was a bigger gap between the films, I didn't sense the level of ambition in this film that was present in The Tree of Life. But one has to take the film as what it is. To The Wonder is not as towering an achievement as some of Malick's other films but it's still a film in which we find Malick striving for pure visual poetry, which I think he achieves.

 Malick has always had a fascination with exploring America's past- the late 1950s that gave birth to one of America's first serial killers, Charles Starkweather, in Badlands, the turn-of-the-century labor in Days of Heaven, the physical an existential conflict soldiers face during WWII in The Thin Red Line, and the founding of the Jamestown, Virginia settlement in 1607 in The New World. He returned to the 1950s in The Tree of Life- an course in that film Malick went beyond just exploring America's past- he literally dramatized the creation of the universe itself. To The Wonder is Malick's first film set entirely in the present day. I may have to see the film again but I didn't feel Malick was too preoccupied with modern day America- the story could've taken place in nearly any time. But then again, Malick's eye always seems to exist outside of time, showing us not the way things actually were in a given time period- but how they exist in the memory or dreams.

I'm still not sure how the Quintana storyline relates to the love triangle. His struggle with his faith reminds us of The Tree of Life, and also Ingmar Bergman, but it didn't feel directly tied to what has happening between Neil, Marina an Jane. 34444444444I've heard that Quintana's story is also a love story- one between him an God. I assume the relationship between Quintana an God is a spiritual relationship that's falling apart much like the physical relationships between Neil and the two women.  I'll have to keep this in mind the next time I see the film.

The way Malick moved the camera in certain scenes reminded me of The Tree of Life- as well as the houses, which brought to mind the O'Brien home. Also, every thing seems bigger through Malick's camera- faces, places, it's a recognizable world but one that seems larger than life.

Those are my initial thoughts on the film. I wasn't as overwhelmed as I was the first time I saw The Tree of Life, but the film, like all of Malick's works, it'll require at least another viewing to completely take every thing in. It'll be interesting to see what To The Wonder's critical standing will be as time goes on, particularly in relation to how it's ranked amongst Malick's other films. The initial reviews have been mixed and maybe the reaction towards the film will always be divided. But for Malick enthusiasts, it's worth seeing and becoming part of Malick's singular world.

"Evil Dead" Review

I've been a little behind lately in regards to writing here, so I'm going to try to get back on track. I'm going to make my return on writing out my thoughts on the new The Evil Dead remake, which I saw on opening day. Evil Dead does what a good remake should do, which is take the basic components of the original- in this case a an abandoned cabin, five college students and a book that unleashes demons which possess those around them- and finds a new angle from which to approach it. The original The Evil Dead launched the career of director Sam Raimi, who would go on to direct of the biggest Super hero films of the the last decade with the Spider-Man Trilogy, and part of The Evil Dead's success was the personality that Raimi injected in to the film. While I'm not ready to call this new film's director, Fede Alvarez, the next Sam Raimi, he brings his own sense of style and tone to this film, never falling in to the trap of trying too hard to be Raimi. The new film is raw and brutal- don't go in expecting the slapstick humour of The Evil Dead's two sequels, Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. It's more in line with the straightforward, go for the throat approach of the original. But even saying that undersells the gruesomeness and near humourlessness of this new film, which makes the gore of the original film seem tame by comparison. This film is definitely not for the faint of heart, but it gets the job done and I think it offers Evil Dead fans what they want in an update of the classic original.

The film focuses on the character of Mia (Jane Levy), whose four friends, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), Olivia (Jessica Lucas), Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore), and Mia's brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) take Mia to an abandoned cabin in the woods in order to put her through drug detox. And of course, Eric finds and reads from the a book in the basement, unleashing human possessing demons, one which attaches itself to Mia. All that fun stuff. I liked the drug detox take on the cabin in the woods setup since in other cabin movies, including the original film, the reason the main characters come to the cabin is to have a party. Here, the film establishes a dark reality that's present even before the really horrific stuff begins to happen. Combining the supernatural horror with the real life horror of a drug addict going cold turkey, while it can be argued makes the film one note, for me, raised the tension quite a bit.

I also think it makes Mia's possession a metaphorical representation of her drug withdrawal. This is emphasized verbally when at first the others think Mia is going through a panic attack. She burns herself in the shower (the demons get off on inflicting pain on themseves in this version) and they think it's her way of getting them to take her away from the cabin. Like The Exorcist this is a film where people try to rationalize the horrific things happening, even though the situation reaches a point where no rational explanation can suffice.  

Levy gives a real star making performace in this film. Levy, most known for her work on the sitcom Suburgatory, gives a much darker performance here, convincingly playing a young woman who has reached the point where she can't survive without drugs, an unadulterated evil demon, and finally a woman who becomes a real badass in the face of evil. I was surprised that the film did strive for dramatic weight regarding Mia's situation and her relationship with David.  That's why I wish there was little more development for the characters- the film seems to be leaning towards fleshing these people out but doesn't go all the way. In regards to the other females, Olivia and Natalie, they seem underwritten. I liked Eric but he also felt he needed a little more focus. Mia and David definitely feel like they're the heart of the film. I also admit that despite wanting a little more development for the other characters, I did feel for them during some crucial moments.

I like the look of the cabin in this film. It's not inviting at all, which is apporpriate for the tone the filmmakers are going for. I feel in other cabin based horror films, the cabin isn't dingy enough. Here you really feel the creakiness, dampness and death within the cabin d I also admire Alvarez's staging of the set pieces. He's not afraid to dwell on the grisly details. Some may say Alvarez is overcompensating by making the film so gory but I think that when updating a film like The Evil Dead, you have to go big or go home. I also feel that the extreme use of gore makes the situation all the more nightmarish, as well as making you sympathethic to what these people are going through,

The film ends with an obligatory hint that things aren't over yet. This is to be expected in a film like this but I actually am looking forward to seeing where this new line of films is going, as well as if it's secretly part of the original Evil Dead universe. There's been talk of Raimi and Evil Dead Trilogy star Bruce Campbell doing another Evil Dead film, with Cmpbell's character of Ash makng his way in to the new series of films. I don't know if the Ash persona can fit with the new tone of this series- but hey, if they could find some way of reintroducing Ash, it'd be pretty groovy.  


PS: Here's a link to my audio review of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_ZWhfj_RA and a retrospective I did on the original trilogy for Scene Creek: http://scenecreek.com/features/retrospective-a-look-back-at-the-evil-dead-trilogy/

Die Hard Series Retrospective Part 4: Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

When Live Free or Die Hard was about to come out, it was a pretty big deal for me. I had seen the three previous Die Hards numerous times and loved them - and this would be the first Die Hard  I was old enough to see in theatres. Admittedly, for me, Live Free or Die Hard couldn't quite live up to the original trilogy, largely because a Die Hard film made in 2007 is a completely different animal than a Die Hard film made in the late 80s or early to mid- 90s, when the first three films where made. Of the Die Hard sequels I've seen (haven't seen A Good Day to Die Hard), it's my least favourite, though I feel number 5 will take that spot soon enough. The film suffers from a villain that's interesting in concept but not executed as effectively as he could've been, especially with a solid actor in the role. It's reconciliation story between father and daughter needed more development as well- since it comes across as more a plot device. Still, I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy this film. It's actually a pretty good action film. Director Len Wiseman stages some memorable action sequences. The film also has some nice emotional beats and an intriguing plot.

The film begins with John McClane (Bruce Willis) being sent to pick up a computer hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long) and bring him to DC. A computer outage at the FBI has led the FBI to seek out known computer hackers, finding them dead. Farrell is being taken in to protective custody. McClane finds out Matt was a pawn in a scheme by a man named Thomas Gabriel (tImothy Olyphant) to start what is known as a "fire sale," in which America's computer controls are hacked, meaning "every thing must go." Gabriel is a former expert for the US Defense Department. After 9/11 he tried to convince the higher ups that America was vulnerable. When he used his laptop to hack in to the the defense system, he was fired. The fire sale is Gabriel's way of proving he was right, as well a way to steal a lot of money.

I like the concept of Gabriel. He basically threatens the security of the United States in order to prove how vulnerable it really is.  I wished they had devloped Gabriel's character a little more and expanded upon the theme of terrorism in a post 9/11 age and what that means for a series like Die Hard and the character of John McClane. Gabriel calls out McClane for being out of date- which is an interesting idea for the Die Hard series to confront- what happens when McClane gets older and his past glories are behind him. Unfortunately, the series doesn't seem to ever want to become a melancholy, introspective look at the decline of the 80s action hero, an ironic concept in regards to John McClane, who was the antithesis to that kind of hero- but he more or less became part of that group of guys as he slowly, or maybe not so slowly, evolved in to one of those iconic bad asses. The franchise just seems content to blow stuff up real good, as Roger Ebert would say. And on that level, it works pretty well. At this point in the franchise, they're not aiming for much semblance to the real world- so you basically have McClane drive a car in to a helicoptor only about half an hour in. You just killed a helicoptor with a car" Matt says. "I was out of bullets'' McClane replies. It's a nice punchline to the scene, letting us know the filmmakers, and McClane, know how ridiculous this stuff is.

A big criticism of this film revolves how McClane seems more like a super hero than the regular cop he was in the first film. And that's true. But there is one scene in this film that I think really nails McClane. It's when Matt tells him McClane that's he's not like McClane, not the hero type. McClane then tells Matt that while he doesn't want to be a hero, some one has to do the right thing. If someone else could, he'd let them. This scene really encompasses what John McClane is all about- the reluctant hero who rather not have go through these crazy adventures but has to because, ultimately, he's a good guy, and no one else will. "That's what makes you that guy," Matt says- John's speech has proved Matt's point.

Back to the action! The fight between McClane and Gabriel's lover/henchwoman Mai (Maggie Q) in an SUV hanging in an elevator shaft is really well executed, and the climax involving McClane in a truck facing down a fighter jet, while ridiculous, is spectacular. The henchman Emerson, who's jumping around like Spider-Man, still feels out of place for me in a Die Hard film, but the stunt choreography in his scenes is pretty great.

The subplot involving McClane's attempt at reconciling with his daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), felt like it needed to be a bigger part of the film. At the heart of the first film was McClane trying to save his marriage- it was the metaphor of the first film. In this film, when Lucy is kidnapped, it feels more like a plot device then something that becomes an organic part of the film. I like Winstead and am glad they gave Lucy an assertiveness that becomes an amusing running gag in the third act- like father like daughter.

Overall, I don't have too much more to say about Live Free or Die Hard. I enjoy it, but I wish it felt a little more like the previous films. It still has the relentless pacing, the face-offs over the phone between McClane and the villain, but it feels a little too detached from the universe of the first three films. Still, I like Willis in this film, and his chemistry with Long. Olyphant is pretty solid and director Wiseman stages the action pretty coherently and with aplomb. I enjoy the film, but I think it'll always be somewhat of an outlier for me.

So, the retrospective is done. My ranking goes like this: Die Hard, Die Hard With a Vengeance, Die Hard 2, Live Free or Die Hard. Even without seeing A Good Day to Die Hard, I feel it'll probably come in dead last, due to what I've heard. It's been fun looking back at this franchise. I love it, and hope that when there's a sixth film, it's the last and takes the franchise out with a bang.

Die Hard Series Retrospective Part 3: "Die Hard With a Vengeance" (1995)

While rewatching Die Hard 2 I found myself liking the film more than I had before. Still, Die Hard With a Vengeance has a special place in my heart as my favourite of the Die Hard sequels- mostly because it gives itself more breathing room than Die Hard 2 did to be its own film. While Die Hard 2 is its own film, sometimes it does feel a little too sel-conscious of the original film, especially with its meta references to the "same shit happening to the same guy twice." Die Hard With A Vengeance definitely feels like the first Die Hard sequel that could've gotten by as another Bruce Willis action film (It was based off an original script that almost became Lethal Weapon 3) but this is what actually makes the film feel a lot fresher and inventive than most third installments. I think it's the funniest of the Die Hard films and also an interesting experiment in playing with audiences' franchise expectations.

The film begins with The Lovin' Spoonfuls' "Summer in the City" playing over images of a New York City day. This intro automatically sets the first apart from the Christmas settings of the first two films and also establishes that we're finally going to see John McClane (Bruce Willis) in his usual stomping grounds, whereas he was a fish out of water in the previou films. I love when the song is cut off by a store exploding- setting up the relentless pacing of this film. A man calling himself Simon (Jeremy Irons) calls Inspector Walter Cobb and tells him that he'll strike again unless the suspended McClane stands in the streets of Harlem with a sandwich board that says "I hate N-----s." McClane is spotted by a shop owner named Zeus Carver (Samuel L. Jackson), who saves him from a gang. Simon then makes Zeus part of his game as he makes him and McClane solve riddles in order to stop more bombings.

The beginning of this film plays mostly like a psychological thriller and the film itself is psychologically playing with the audience's expectations of what a Die Hard film is like. We know ths franchise is a lot more than John McClane solving riddles- so we wonder what Simon and the film's endgame is, as well as how the scope scale of this film will expand. Of course, before long, McClane is jumping on the top of subway train that has a bomb in it. It's eventually revealed that Simon is Hans Gruber's (Alan Rickman) brother, which in itself is also a red herring. We begin to think that Simon wants revenge against McClane but a big joke near the end is that Simon didn't really like his brother. Of course, as Simon says, "There's a difference between not liking your brother and not caring when some Irish flatfoot throws him off a building." The whole riddle nonsense, the supposed bomb at an elementary school, the idea that Simon wants revenge on McClane- it's all a cover for Simon to steal gold from the New York federal reserve.  While a big criticism of this film could be that it has too much bait-and-switch going on, I think it's this quality that makes it such a fascinating action film- as well as sequel. For the first time, it really feels like the villain gets the better of John McClane. In the first two films, McClane took th bad guys by surprise- this time the tables are turned.

While much of the film is a ruse, what I think will keep me coming back to the film is the throughline of McClane and Zeus' relationship. Zeus is somewhat of a racist- something that's both played for laughs but it also disquieting in its own way. Zeus' arc through the film involves get past his prejudices and learn to work with McClane. He's a fascinating character and I think this stands as one of Jackson's most vivid performances. The chemistry between him and Willis is sharp and funny- I love when McClane calls him "Jesus" because he thinks that what the gang was calling him. "They weren't saying 'Jesus,' they were saying "Hey, Zeus," Zeus tells him. "Father of Apollo. Don't fuck with me or I'll shove a lightning bolt up your ass." It's one of thos great details that's always brought this franchise to life. While a lot of people seem to hate the water jug riddle scene, I like how it brings to head the tensions between McClane and Zeus, with McClane finally calling him out as a rascist.

Who's awesome enough to play Alan Rickman's brother? Jeremy Irons of course. Just hearing his voice over the phone in the first act of this film gives me pleasure. It's fascinating how our impression of Simon changes over the course of the film- from a smart but random psychopath to a vengeful brother- to something else entirely. Like his brother Hans and Colonel Stuart from Die Hard 2, he's an extremely smart villain- one who we know is a formidable foe for McClane.

Admittedly, I don't like the action in this film as much as I do the the second film, but having John McTiernan, who directed the first film, back behind the camera is great. He brings a ruthless intensity to the staging of the action. I love the elevator fight between McClane and Simon's men who are pretending to be police officers- especially that final shot, the close-up of McClane as he fires his gun and blood sprays all over his face. The race to get to the subway- with McClane and Zeus driving a cab through Central Park is also pretty fun. The ending of the film does feel a little abrupt and not quite as memorable as the first two- the alternate ending is more interesting- but tonally I remember it not fitting with the rest of the film.

 Die Hard With a Vengeance stands for me as one of the better third installments in cinema. While it's not as lean as its prequels, it's a consistently entertaining, very funny and structurally interesting take on the Die Hard franchise. And as an end to the original "trilogy," it's a good capper. Of course, while it would take 12 years, this wouldn't be the end of the Die Hard franchise, not by a long shot. Next up: Live Free or Die Hard.

Die Hard Series Retrospective Part 2: "Die Hard 2" (1990)

For better or worse, of all the Die Hard sequels, Die Hard 2 feels the most like a sequel to the original film, in terms of its tone, atmosphere, and returning characters. With this sequel we begin to see the problem, further highlighted by the next two installments, of making a sequel to Die Hard. Make a film too close to the formula of the original film, like Die Hard 2, and it makes the audience conscious of watching a sequel that's similar but not as great as the original. Make a sequel that's tonally and structurally different from the original, with Die Hard With a Vengeance and Live Free or Die Hard, and it feels like the series is departing too far from the original premise. All that being said, Die Hard 2, while sometimes feeling too conscious of being a sequel, and repeating several of the elements from the first film, manages to balance those formula elements while still feeling like its own film. It's as rock solid as a sequel can get and is one of the most entertaining action films of the 1990s.

The plot of the film revolves around General Ramon Esperanza (Franco Nero), drug lord and dictator, who is being extradited to the United States to stand trial for drug trafficking charges. Colonel Stuart (William Sadler), of the US Army Special Forces, and his men take over Washington's airport systems from a church and demand that Esperanza's plane not be met by anyone and also demand a plane so they can all escape to another country. Of course, guess who's also at the airport. That's right- John McClane (Bruce Willis). It's Christmas Eve again and his wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) is on one of the planes that can't land wiithout landing lights and is running low on fuel. Once again McClane is "up to his ass in terrorists" and has to use his wits, and his gun, to save his wife and the other people up in the air as well.

This is where one of the problems of Die Hard 2 comes in. As I said earliier, the film is very conscious of being a sequel, particularly in McClane's reaction to the situtation. It's not a completely bad thing. We hear, in the confrontation between McClane and Carmine Lorenzo (Dennis Franz), captain of airport police, that McClane became famous for a while after the situation at Nakatomi. And Colonel Stuart tells McClane he thought he was out of his element while being interviewed on Nightline. These references give some nice texture to the Die Hard universe and grounds the film in reality- of course people would know who McClane was, even if they didn't respect him. On the other hand, when McClane says the line  Oh man, I can't fucking believe this. Another basement, another elevator. How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice?" It feels like the screenplay is laying it on a little too thick, and being a little too meta. While the line suits the everyman quality McClane posseses, it lends itself too much to parody and plays up the absurdity of the situation that would best be left unsaid.

I think Die Hard 2 is the most unnerving and terrifying of the Die Hard films, which is largely due to the scene is which Stuart, in response to McClane interfering, makes a plane crash by talking to its pilots. It's a harrowing and devastating scene, particularly in how McClane tries to make it pull up but fails. It's actually surprising that this scene made it in to the film- and in our post 9/11 age, it's even more unsettling. It's also in this scene where we see how ruthless Stuart can be. Sadler is utterly convincing as the calculated Stuart. He makes you really hate him, and as an aspiring actor myself, I admire him not being afraid to play such an unlikable character. He also has one of the most memorable introductions I've ever seen for a villain (nakes ti-chi!). He's not as great a villain as Alan Rickman's Hans but he's very memorable.

This film has some pretty strong action scenes, such as the catwalk ambush and the snowmobile chase. I love the scene where McClane has to eject himself from a plane cockpit to escape the villains' grenades. It provides the most memorable shots from the film. Renny Harlin, the finnish director who almost directed Alien 3 and would go on to direct the Sylvester Stallone film Cliffhanger, handles the action pretty well for his first big budget action film.

An essential component of the first Die Hard was the claustrophic surrounding that also allowed enough movement to create thrilling action. I like how this feel generates claustrophobia for McClane by having his wife stuck in the air- an interesting twist on the situation from the first film. McClane can leave the airport but he still needs to see this adventure through to the end. He also has to clash with Lorenzo, who wants nothing more than to kick McClane out of his airport. Franz is perfect as the arrogant blowhard Lorenzo but the character is pretty monotonous. I do like that when McClane finally makes Lorenzo take him seriously- via the blanks the supposedly "good guys" led by Major Grant (John Amos) were using against Stuart (Grant and his men are in cahoots with Stuart)- Lorenzo simply says "It's time to kick ass." It's a nice and simple way to show Lorenzo finally trusting McClane as well as ready to show he's not just a bureuacrat.

The film isn't quite as soulful as the first film, which at its heart was about a guy trying to fix his marriage. That was the metpahor for the entire film. In this film, Holly and McClane's marriage is doing well so having Holly being on board one of the planes is more of a plot device-albeit a relatable and emotional one for McClane. The movie isn't entirely soulless- McClane not being able to save the plane shows how McClane isn't the perfect action hero who can save everyone- and the reunion between Holly and McClane is touching. I do wish Richard "Dick" Thornburg (William Atherton) went through an arch of redemption rather than just be the same slimy reporter he was in the first film but I'm glad Holly is portrayed as an assertive woman rather than a damsel in distress.

Die Hard 2 is a very entertaining and well paced action film that's very lean and brutal- as well as unpretentious about what it wants to be. It's also arguably the only Die Hard sequel that feels like a sequel to Die Hard. It doesn't match the greatness of the first film but it's still a damn good film. Next up, probably my favourite of the Die Hard sequels: Die Hard With a Vengeance.