The basis for the action thriller Die Hard, a movie that, however tongue in cheek, consistently makes media lists of the top Christmas films of all time. This, it's fair to say, because in spite of getting the core of the story right, it doesn't end quite the same way, and that makes all the difference in the world. The book, Thorp's sequel to his own 1966 novel The Detective (which was also made into a film, starring Frank Sinatra), is the story of Joe Leland, a retired New York cop, who flies to California on Christmas Eve to be with his daughter and ends up trapped inside her skyscraper office building during a terrorist attack. It, too, is an action thriller -- Leland, who begins with one gun and no shoes, must outmaneuver and kill his opponents, all while trying to keep the hostages, including his daughter, alive -- but it is also filled with Leland's ruminations on a life not always well lived, particularly in terms of his failed marriage and the mistakes he made raising his child. (Knowledge of the previous book or at least the Sinatra film is not required, but certainly doesn't hurt.) Late in the story, it also becomes vaguely political. No wonder the prose is occasionally a bit choppy. Still, it's the action and the suspense that carry the day, and that make this book an entertaining read. Until the end, anyway, which hits a note so jarringly off-key that, if it doesn't spoil the book, probably will leave you content to revisit it at the movies.
+++
The basis for the action thriller Die Hard, a movie that, however tongue in cheek, consistently makes media lists of the top Christmas films of all time. This, it's fair to say, because in spite of getting the core of the story right, it doesn't end quite the same way, and that makes all the difference in the world. The book, Thorp's sequel to his own 1966 novel The Detective (which was also made into a film, starring Frank Sinatra), is the story of Joe Leland, a retired New York cop, who flies to California on Christmas Eve to be with his daughter and ends up trapped inside her skyscraper office building during a terrorist attack. It, too, is an action thriller -- Leland, who begins with one gun and no shoes, must outmaneuver and kill his opponents, all while trying to keep the hostages, including his daughter, alive -- but it is also filled with Leland's ruminations on a life not always well lived, particularly in terms of his failed marriage and the mistakes he made raising his child. (Knowledge of the previous book or at least the Sinatra film is not required, but certainly doesn't hurt.) Late in the story, it also becomes vaguely political. No wonder the prose is occasionally a bit choppy. Still, it's the action and the suspense that carry the day, and that make this book an entertaining read. Until the end, anyway, which hits a note so jarringly off-key that, if it doesn't spoil the book, probably will leave you content to revisit it at the movies.
0 Comments
++ Nicolas Cage is Kyle Miller, a hard-driving, fast-talking businessman whose current project -- he's the middle-man for a number of diamond deals that may or may not be strictly on the level -- gets him targeted by murderous thieves. Or are they targeted because of his wife, Sarah (Nicole Kidman), who may have had an affair with one of them? Well, we know it isn't because of their sneaky teenage daughter, Avery (Liana Liberato), though through an amazing coincidence, she may hold the key to their freedom. It's only PC to get everyone in on the act, even if it makes the movie absurd and unbelievable. In something approaching a real home invasion, one with money as the bottom line, wife and daughter would be useful tools for coercing husband into giving up his wealth. But here, wife is protected by Jonah (Cam Gigandet), the psycho slug with whom she was previously acquainted. And since to hurt Avery is to hurt Sarah, that really only leaves Kyle -- and leaves us wondering why the women are there at all. They're there, of course, to sow dissension among the ranks of the criminals, a tired idea that looks positively exhausted here, when all the thugs had to do was take the women into another room, and all their internal differences would have been settled. What happens instead is a lot of yelling and gun-pointing and the making of empty threats and more gun-pointing as, through flashbacks, we learn the underlying dynamics of this little band of nimrods. None of them are sympathetic characters (which is fine), but combine that with Kyle's seeming disinterest in his family, Avery's rebelliousness, and Sarah's possible infidelity and the whole thing becomes incomprehensible. Who are we supposed to root for? You might not turn this movie off -- Cage and Kidman are all right, after all -- but it's the kind of movie you might think you did, once your brain dumps its short-term memory. ++++ Alan Thorndike (Walter Pidgeon), well-known big game hunter, trains his high-powered rifle on Adolf Hitler. But, as he tells Nazi Major Quive-Smith (George Sanders) after his capture, he didn't intend to shoot. It was, he says, a "sporting stalk." The thrill was in proving he could do it. The Major doesn't buy it, but Thorndike talks a good line -- a cultured English gentleman's version of General Zaroff's tune from "The Most Dangerous Game." When Thorndike refuses to sign a confession stating that he not only intended to kill Hitler but did so at the request of the British government, Quive-Smith has him tortured and thrown over the side of a cliff, to die an "accidental" death. He survives, and another hunt is on. All of this takes place "shortly before the war." During the course of the film, Germany invades Poland and World War II is begun. Joan Bennett plays Jerry, a London streetwalker who aids Thorndike and, of course, falls in love with him. It's easy to see why. Part of the charm of this movie is Thorndike himself, who is tough yet refined, rich but not snooty, serious yet carefree and optimistic. Too perfect? Absolutely. But he's still fun to watch. Made before Pearl Harbor, albeit by a man who hated the Nazis (Lang), when America was still isolationist. (According to Wikipedia, we don't see Thorndike's torture because the Hays Office wouldn't allow it, thinking it put the Germans in a bad light.) But this isn't a movie just for history buffs. It's exciting, funny, suspenseful, and refreshingly free of the naiveté of the country and the time that produced it. Based on the novel Rogue Male by Geoffrey Household. +++ Competent if uninspired thriller about a young mother whose two children are kidnapped -- on the seventh anniversary of the kidnapping and murder of her two previous children. Made the Mystery Writers of America's list of the top 100 mystery novels of all time, probably due to the remembered effect on its members of the book's then-novel theme of child molestation (though, to be fair, it should be noted that the bad guy, even today, remains a compelling character). Clark's first suspense novel. Based in part on the real life Alice Crimmins case, of a young wife and mother accused of killing her two children. Made into a movie in 1986, starring Jill Clayburgh. ++ Not a remake of Michael Mann's Manhunter, but a determindly fresh adaptation of the Thomas Harris novel as a prequel to the films The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal, with Anthony Hopkins reprising his role as Hannibal Lecter. Will Graham, the man who at great personal cost originally captured Lecter (according to the films, not the books), is lured out of retirement to help catch another serial killer, one targeting entire families, and is compelled to seek advice from his old nemesis. With too-young-looking Edward Norton as Graham and too-handome Ralph Fiennes as the killer, and a great deal more hero worship of Lecter and his supercalifragilistic intellect. Employs elements of the book not found in Manhunter -- that is, all the worst ones, including the silly ending, to which screenwriter Ted Tally adds a ridiculous Friday the 13th-type twist. +++++ Stylish, top-notch thriller, adapted from Thomas Harris' Red Dragon, about a serial killer who murders whole families and the FBI profiler lured out of retirement to catch him. Beautifully directed, and also written, by Mann, who surpasses the novel in several key aspects, most notably by dumping Harris' trick ending and replacing it with an honest climax, while maintaining the suspense and breathless pacing of the book. William Petersen, as Agent Graham, grounds the film nicely, and Tom Noonan makes a formidable and menacing psycho. Brian Cox, in a role later made enormously famous by Anthony Hopkins, plays Hannibal "Lecktor," a captive cannibal with links to the killer; he's not as flashy as Hopkins, but very effective in his own right. Had to be "reappraised" by critics to get the credit it deserves. ++ This film has one very cool visual effect and a fun noir comic-book style (even though it was based on a video game), but the story is a mess. Rather than trying to find the logic in the violence, it sees the two as equivalent, so whenever the plot starts to go off the track, the filmmakers simply toss in some more mayhem. Mark Wahlberg plays Max, a cop tortured by the reality that one of the men who killed his wife and baby is still at large. Mila Kunis plays Mona Sax, the gun-toting sister of a woman hacked to pieces in an alley not far from Max’s apartment. The deaths are related, of course, and lead Max to a shadowy group of people who sport wing-like tattoos as protection against a terrible evil. Or something like that. Cue the machine guns. ++ Badly directed story of preposterous serial killer (Keanu Reeves) who murders women for no discernible reason other than to feed his incomprehensible obsession with his favorite detective (James Spader). To make things more interesting, Reeves begins sending Spader photos of his intended victims, giving him one day to find them before he strikes. The "time-bomb" antics occasionally work, but Charbanic is always ready with another slo-mo, herky-jerky flashback to put a stop to that. Good cast wasted all around. Also with Ernie Hudson and Marisa Tomei. ++1/2 You know that the Bond movies are all about the Bond movies when they start building stories around actors playing secondary characters. This one is a send off for Judi Dench, who took over the role of M with Goldeneye. M, of course, is James Bond's boss. M is the person who sends Bond off on all his adventures. M is not 007. Yet here she is, the target of her own government (who think maybe she's too antiquated for her job) and a maniac with a personal grudge. Add to that a plot that sees Bond (Daniel Craig) returning to his family home (a dark topic he refuses to discuss) and the (re)discovery of Q and Miss Moneypenny, and what you get is not so much a Bond movie as a Bond family soap opera. Javier Bardem plays the madman, Silva, and his performance is creepy enough, but the character's a chump. Director Mendes is convinced he is one of the great Bond villains. A great Bond villain, however, doesn't whine about doing his job or others doing theirs, and he sure as hell isn't consumed by mommy issues. Silva is supposed to be a cyberterrorist, but we must take that on faith. All we know for sure is that he's a spoiled brat who got his butt spanked long ago and isn't ever going to forget it. Some villain. The movie is best, by far, in its first half, when Bond, shot and presumed dead during the opening, later learns that MI6 has been destroyed and battles back into shape to take on the psycho responsible for that. One fight scene is imaginatively shot in a high rise office building in Shanghai against the backdrop of one of those giant Asian electronic advertising screens. Bond's big break comes when he speaks to Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe), the maniac's mistress. It may be the best scene in the film: dark, quiet, and humming with tension. But the second half is a drag, one that plays up the film's confusion over point of view. Is the story about Bond, M, or Silva? You get to take your pick. Which isn't the way a "Bond movie" should work. +++1/2 The people who made The Philadelphia Experiment bought the wrong book (a supposedly factual account written by William L. Moore and Charles Berlitz) when they decided to turn this conspiracy theory into a film. So, instead, they (by way of Moore and Berlitz) simply ripped off a whopping chunk of the better choice -- this book, Thin Air. The echoes are so distinct in the first part of the book that to read it is to be constantly reminded of the film. But Thin Air came first, and it is superior to the film and its second-hand plagiarism. Fictionalizing the fiction, Simpson and Burger start with the so-called Philadelphia Experiment -- a Navy experiment in invisibility that actually worked, but which included painful and even fatal side-effects for the crew aboard the target vessel -- then expand it even further into the realm of science fiction by supposing that work on the project never ended. The story is built around a present-day Naval investigator, who is sucked into the case by an old girlfriend's husband's dreams of screaming men and a ship that disappears from one Navy yard only to briefly reappear in another. It's all plot (except for the de rigueur romance) -- plot and mystery (the first half), plot and action (the second). But it's fast-paced and well done, weakened only by an all-too-typical group of bad guys who turn out not to be nearly so clever or competent as their decades-long cover-up would reasonably indicate. On the other hand, Hammond, the Navy man, isn't James Bond, either, and that's refreshing. A smooth blend of suspense, science fiction, and even horror, with something as well for conspiracy and military buffs. |
KinoLivresBooks. Movies. Mostly. Archives
July 2017
Categories
All
|