|
|
Post by jdv on Dec 13, 2022 17:20:57 GMT -5
Watched both in the past couple of weeks and a couple of things surprised me.
First is how well both movies hold up - great actors, great SFX (although DIE HARD has far more of them), and of course how much X-mas is part of the plot. WEAPON released in '87, DIE HARD in '88.
But which one is best?
Well DIE HARD's the bigger movie - more actors, slicker camera work (shot in anamorphic), bigger story, lots more explosions (with it's $20 million bigger budget, this is no surprise). But WEAPON certainly doesn't feel small. Perhaps because it's smaller it perhaps feels a bit more real; anamorphic is great in theaters, a bit less so on 50" TV screens.
What's interesting is that both feature either relative unknowns in huge roles - Danny Glover, Mel Gibson, Alan Rickman, Tom Adkins, Bruce Willis, Gary Busey - none of them stars (when cast), and none of them established box office draws.
Arguably Glover was the biggest name as he had just stared in THE COLOR PURPLE, but that movie is miles away from an action flick Busey had made a splash playing Buddy Holly in '78, but career had cooled by the time he got WEAPON. It was the first time Busey played a villain, and he was so good in the part he'd be type-cast as a bad guy for the rest of his (insane) career.
Both soundtracks are great, but WEAPON's soundtrack is far more "80's-ish" for better or worse.
Watching them both in late '22 reminded me of how much pacing has changed in movies in the past 34 years. DIE HARD, when the action is happening, is absolutely electric. But there are big sections of the movie where it drags to a near halt. Watching it with my kids who are in their 20's, you could see their eyes glaze over during these lulls.
DIE HARD's 20 minutes longer, and WEAPON has the brisker pacing regardless. In terms of keeping an audience's interest, I'd say that WEAPON is the slam dunk winner.
But DIE HARD has the better villain. While Mitchell Ryan does yeoman's work as General Peter McAllister & Busey chews scenery like Shatner, Allan Rickman is so insanely good as a Hans Grubber that he might well be in the top 5 for best movie villains ever, right up there with the Wicked Witch of the West and Darth Vader.
Which is pretty high praise.
The WEAPON sequels are arguably better, although DIE HARD 2 is an absolute hoot. In the end, I think the edge might go to LETHAL WEAPON based on pacing, the better links to Xmas, and what's perhaps the first use of ju jitsu in movie history.
But it's real close. WHAT SAY YOU?
|
|
|
|
Post by Warpig on Dec 14, 2022 12:46:39 GMT -5
Something to note about LW vs DH: DH occurs over the space of a single evening, which means that it really is happening in real-time. There are no gaps or time transitions, you simply follow the events as they unfold before you, one right after the other. LW by contrast takes place over several days, at least, as there are prologue scenes, morning scenes, evening scenes, etc. So structurally DH is much more of a Christmas movie than LW is.
Most Christmas films take place over a very short period, even if, like Scrooge, they reference times and events from the past, they happen in the context of a single day or night, thus matching Christmas, which is one day. Although admittedly, the Christmas "season" is longer. DH has more direct Christmas references, but not by a whole lot, than LW. However the Christmas references for DH start immediately, the LW references are over time and they are not a component of the film as much as they are in DH. For example, in DH, BW straps his gun to his neck with wrapping tape for presents, and of course "Ho, Ho, Ho".
Also, the occasion he is attending is a Christmas party, there are no such references in LW. (Interestingly, no one seems to notice that BW and MG carry the same sidearm.) It would have been a funny crossover if Al Powell was on the LAPD in LW as well as DH. Even if it was for a single scene, it would have been a fun thing to include.
So my conclusion: DH is more of a Christmas film than LW. LW's buddy component is better than DH's because in DH they only meet at the end, even as they have had conversations over the course of the evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdv on Dec 14, 2022 13:51:09 GMT -5
Good stuff, but allow me to retort....
I think there is more Xmas imagery in WEAPON - there's actually very little overtly Xmas decorations in DH. Willis has a teddy bear, presumably for one of his kids for Xmas, and I think there's a Xmas tree at the party, and of course the "HO HO HO" gag, but that's about it.
WEAPON has Xmas stuff in almost every scene - when we first meet Gibson, he's selling Xmas trees under cover. All the stuff at Glover's house is replete with Xmas decorations, tree, yada. The tree itself gets run over when Busey crashes into the house. The naturally sterile environment of Nakatomi Towers vs the homey setting of Glover's house alone puts this in LW's favor....
Don't agree that DIE HARD's more Xmas-y b/c it happens in one night (presumably not Xmas or Xmas eve either). LOT'S of great Xmas stories run longer the course of a 24 hour period - cartoons like Rudolf the reindeer, Santa Claus is Coming to Town, & Frosty the Snowman, CHRISTMAS IN CONNECTICUT, MIRACLE ON 34th ST, A CHRISTMAS STORY, ELF, CHRISTMAS VACATION, WHITE CHRISTMAS - all take place over the course of days or even weeks.
Heck, arguably the best Xmas movie of them all - IT'S WONDERFUL LIFE - takes place over the course of years. Indeed, looking at that list, it's arguable that LETHAL WEAPON takes more traditional approach in its pacing/timing (plus the fact that CHRISTMAS CAROL is something of a cheat as the flashbacks to Scrooge's past kinda put it beyond the 24 hour period too).
And like A WONDERFUL LIFE, Riggs is suicidal, again presumably pushed closer to it because of the holidays (which he refers too as "the sill season").
Now DIE HARD II really leans into Christmas imagery, again featuring far more Xmas imagery than I does.
And that's what's weird - DIE HARD is on nearly everyone's top 50 list (usually in the top 10), but zero mention of LETHAL WEAPON which is arguably more related to the holiday (perhaps why Willis and McTernan both claim still say DH is not a Xmas movie).
One argument for DH - really the only one - is that Willis is only there b/c of Christmas & that the staff of the building are (mostly) on one floor b/c of an Xmas party. That's it. The criminals could have picked any other time to commit the crime as the building wasn't even finished yet, including New Year's Eve when there would be even less people to try an account for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warpig on Dec 14, 2022 15:07:37 GMT -5
Perhaps THIS is why?
|
|
|
|
Post by jdv on Dec 14, 2022 18:06:04 GMT -5
Hmmm, probably not, but it was a heck of an apology.
Also, Kanye should have probably learned something from that whole episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warpig on Dec 14, 2022 19:29:56 GMT -5
I'm sure he's learned the exact same lessons Mel has.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdv on Dec 15, 2022 13:23:34 GMT -5
As a side note, the fact that Kanye West was a billionaire - much less a millionaire - before this all started says a lot about this society's priorities.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2beers on Dec 24, 2022 19:07:02 GMT -5
Watched both in the past couple of weeks and a couple of things surprised me.
First is how well both movies hold up - great actors, great SFX (although DIE HARD has far more of them), and of course how much X-mas is part of the plot. WEAPON released in '87, DIE HARD in '88.
But which one is best?
Well DIE HARD's the bigger movie - more actors, slicker camera work (shot in anamorphic), bigger story, lots more explosions (with it's $20 million bigger budget, this is no surprise). But WEAPON certainly doesn't feel small. Perhaps because it's smaller it perhaps feels a bit more real; anamorphic is great in theaters, a bit less so on 50" TV screens.
What's interesting is that both feature either relative unknowns in huge roles - Danny Glover, Mel Gibson, Alan Rickman, Tom Adkins, Bruce Willis, Gary Busey - none of them stars (when cast), and none of them established box office draws.
Arguably Glover was the biggest name as he had just stared in THE COLOR PURPLE, but that movie is miles away from an action flick Busey had made a splash playing Buddy Holly in '78, but career had cooled by the time he got WEAPON. It was the first time Busey played a villain, and he was so good in the part he'd be type-cast as a bad guy for the rest of his (insane) career.
Both soundtracks are great, but WEAPON's soundtrack is far more "80's-ish" for better or worse.
Watching them both in late '22 reminded me of how much pacing has changed in movies in the past 34 years. DIE HARD, when the action is happening, is absolutely electric. But there are big sections of the movie where it drags to a near halt. Watching it with my kids who are in their 20's, you could see their eyes glaze over during these lulls.
DIE HARD's 20 minutes longer, and WEAPON has the brisker pacing regardless. In terms of keeping an audience's interest, I'd say that WEAPON is the slam dunk winner.
But DIE HARD has the better villain. While Mitchell Ryan does yeoman's work as General Peter McAllister & Busey chews scenery like Shatner, Allan Rickman is so insanely good as a Hans Grubber that he might well be in the top 5 for best movie villains ever, right up there with the Wicked Witch of the West and Darth Vader.
Which is pretty high praise.
The WEAPON sequels are arguably better, although DIE HARD 2 is an absolute hoot. In the end, I think the edge might go to LETHAL WEAPON based on pacing, the better links to Xmas, and what's perhaps the first use of ju jitsu in movie history.
But it's real close. WHAT SAY YOU?
So hard to chose |
|
