Salem's Lot (1979)

Director: Tobe Hooper

Cast: David Soul, James Mason, Lance Kerwin, Bonnie Bedelia

Have I Seen it Before: Never.

Did I Like It: I worry I went into this with the wrong mindset. People have enjoyed it, right? I’m pressing play on the blu ray, and I can’t get the reality out of my head that It (1990) is a 4 hour exercise where maybe two minutes of it work. Maybe the network boradcast treatment of horror novels—and especially King’s work—is destined for failure. The movie really had to win me over.

And didn’t quite get the job done. Here there might be scant seconds that work, and each of those seconds are jump cuts. The entire film is not kept together by any performance that gives the film real menace, a la Tim Curry in It. James Mason has a little bit of menace to him, and Bonnie Bedelia is always a welcome a presence, but neither of them are given enough to do to even remotely make a three hour run time not feel like a chore.

I’d say the film ages poorly, but I’m having a hard time imagining that the people of 1979 could reach for dread when confronted with only occasional appearances of a vampire that looks less like Count Orlock in Nosferatu (1922) and more like the Blue Meanies from Yellow Submarine (1968).

Even those few and far between jump scares wear thin as things proceed. I realize as they pile up that not only is a vampire suddenly jumping into frame, but that frame freezes in place, to really drive home the fact that I’m supposed to be scared. Throw in some act breaks that were originally designed to sell me an Atari 2600 doesn’t help matters much.

Then again, it could be worse. I direct the curious to Salem’s Lot (2004). At least this version didn’t force Rob Lowe to leave The West Wing.

Die Hard 2 (1990)

Director: Renny Harlin

Cast: Bruce Willis, Bonnie Bedelia, William Atherton, Reginald VelJohnson*

Have I Seen it Before: Sure, I mean, I’m not stopping everything around certain major holidays to force whoever is in my proximity to watch it like certain other films. But I’ve probably seen it twice or so over the years.

Did I Like It: Oddly, yes? Sure, this might not be the little sequel that could that became Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995). There are parts that are a rehash of the original, sure, but there is an obligatory and appropriate expanding of the scope here. Where Die Hard (1988) is an oftentimes claustrophobic journey up and down the Nakatomi Tower, this spreads out the action and raises the stakes.

The cast surrounding Willis—a little more dour, as somebody bothered to tell him he’s a movie star—is also a delight, with the main threat coming from William Sadler and John Amos, two actors I’m bound to be delightfully surprised to see in things. The Grim Reaper and Chairman Fitzwallace causing trouble for John McClane and America? That’s pitch enough for a movie.

I’m even willing to overlook the fact that most of the plot hinges on the image quality of faxed fingerprints. I think I am, anyway. At least this isn’t one of the bloated, inept sequels almost completely unrelated to the original that we got in more recent years.

*Right out of the gate, this review is already running havoc with the in house style here on the site. You might want to call the movie Die Harder, but that’s not the real title of the movie. Also, the first three cast members credited after Willis appear in the film for a combined 15 minutes and each appears less interested in being in the same place with Willis for longer than they have to for more than 30 seconds.

Die Hard (1988)

Director: John McTiernan

Cast: Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, Alexander Godunov, Bonnie Bedelia

Have I Seen it Before: Every Christmas Eve for years…

Anybody got a problem with that?

No? We good?

Did I Like It: It’s reputation as a one of the greatest action films of all time would be hard to dispute. Every moment of the film is precisely to design. I can count on one hand the amount of films that waste not one second of their screen time. The movie made Bruce Willis a star beyond the dreams of Moonlighting, when his subsequent work in films has only intermittently earned that degree of notoriety. It birthed an entire of subgenre of “Die Hard on a…” action movies that actually contributed a few pretty great movies.

Someone might not care for action films, and on this level one could not recommend the film. Otherwise, it is one of those superlative films that repels controversial or contrary assessments.

Except on that one issue. Fine, let’s talk about it. Is Die Hard a Christmas movie? Many—including the film’s star, apparently—have dismissed the idea completely out of hand. Many insist that it objectively not only qualifies as a Christmas movie, but in fact is at or near the top of the greatest Christmas movies. Still more find the debate between the two points to be tiresome and tedious.

I think all three perspectives need to take a minute and remember both the holiday they’re dragging through the mud and the movie they’re taking the piss out of in the process. It’s about family. It’s about togetherness. It’s about trying to be with family on certain dates in late December. If that’s not a Christmas movie, then I think the universe is fundamentally at odds about fundamental truths.

I watch Die Hard every Christmas Eve. The holiday is not real, nor does it even officially start until Argyle (De’voreaux White) drives Mr. and Mrs. McLane away in his limo.

If it’s not a part of your Christmas celebration, then it is not a Christmas movie for you. Can the rest of us do what we want in December?

Good.

Now if I only could get everyone on board with the idea that Batman Returns (1992) being a Christmas movie, then we could finally have peace on Earth and good will toward man and Bonnie Bedelia.