Talk Movies To Me

Category archive

Essays

Essays on films, filmmakers, themes, etc.

Ho, Ho, Ho: ‘Die Hard’ Isn’t A Christmas Movie

in Essays by

In recent years the argument for what should and shouldn’t be considered a Christmas movie has become a hot topic every holiday season. One movie in particular has become the center of this argument. You know the one I’m talking about. It takes place around Christmas time, with many scenes decorated in holiday decor, Christmas trees and lights. I am of course talking about Stanley Kubrick’s, Eyes Wide Shut. For years this movie has…. oh, you thought I was referring to Die Hard? Let’s tackle that one instead. The idea for this article sparked when I was at a local Best Buy the other week and was browsing the holiday movie section. I noticed that Die Hard was placed among movies like Christmas Vacation and Miracle on 34th Street. I thought to myself, “Has society finally caved to this idea?” While I do believe there are valid points for considering Die Hard a Christmas movie, as I will explain later, I’d like to persuade you to think otherwise.

To lay the foundation for my argument, I’d first like to establish some factors for what I believe every Christmas movie should have. If we look at the movies that are solidified in the canon of Christmas movies, there are some common factors that are found among them – the marketing, the music, and its heart. While not each factor alone can make the case for each movie, they should be weighed together as a whole when determining whether or not it belongs in the Christmas movie canon. 

Factor 1 – The Marketing

The very first thing that would make the average movie goer believe they were about to watch a Christmas movie is, of course, the title and cover art. The cover art is essential in telling the viewers what kind of movie to expect and what they are trying to sell you. The movie trailer is also an extension of the marketing that goes beyond the cover. If neither the trailer, title or the movie poster are not leading you to believe that you are about to watch a Christmas movie, then it is more than likely you’re not going to watch a Christmas movie. Here is the original movie poster and link to the original trailer for Die Hard below. 

Watch the original trailer here

Nothing about the poster alludes to any kind of Christmas theme, while everything about it highlights what an action-packed, thrilling adventure it is. The trailer hints a little bit at a Christmas theme, as it begins with a familiar holiday tune and ends with Bruce Willis talking about a Christmas party. But let us not forget that this movie was released in the middle of July, which definitely makes a stronger case for a summer blockbuster push. But who are we to judge a movie by it’s cover art? Let’s dig a little deeper. 

Factor 2- The Music

Most Christmas movies can be identified instantly by the extensive Christmas music played throughout. It plays a big part in evoking that Christmas spirit inside of us all that every Christmas movie wants us to feel. Pulling up a movie’s soundtrack and identifying a bevy of various renditions of classic Christmas songs is a very strong sign that the film intends to be a Christmas movie. Let’s look at Die Hard’s official soundtrack.

Tracklist

1The Nakatomi Plaza1:50
2Gruber’s Arrival3:40
3John’s Escape / You Want Money?5:52
4The Tower1:49
5The Roof3:57
6The Fight1:07
7He Won’t Be Joining Us3:53
8And If He Alters It?2:39
9Going After John Again4:33
10Have A Few Laughs3:29
11Welcome To The Party1:00
12TV Station / His Bag Is Missing3:52
13Assault On The Tower8:16
14John Is Found Out5:03
15Attention Police3:38
16Bill Clay2:02
17I Had An Accident2:37
18Ode To Joy3:36
19The Battle10:15
20Gruber’s Departure1:56
21Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow! (Instrumental Version)2:00

Only one out of the 21 tracks can be identified as a Christmas song. To be fair, Bruce Willis is heard whistling Jingle Bells at one point, and Powell can be heard singing Let it Snow! as well. I guess we can let Ode To Joy slide and pass as a Christmas song too. But they are brief, and merely allude to the fact the the heist is taking place during Christmas time. They are not sung or played with the intent to evoke the Christmas Spirit. Still not convinced? Let’s try one more factor.

Factor 3 – The Heart

One factor that is sure to be found across the board in every Christmas movie is a common theme of what Christmas is all about. While Die Hard may have bits and pieces of the first two factors, the heart of Christmas is missing. Instead, its plot rings more true with an action blockbuster released in the middle of July, as it should. On re-watch, Die Hard truly is one of the greatest action movies of all time. It set the bar for what action movies could and should be. But at its heart, it’s no Christmas movie. It’s an action-packed adventure thriller that happens to take place during Christmas. If you ask me, Die Hard 2 sets the stage for a Christmas theme better than its predecessor does. A man trying to get home to be with his family on Christmas spends the movie getting hung up at the airport? That plot rings a little more familiar with other canon Christmas movies. But I digress.

I’ve come to the conclusion that Die Hard is ultimately deceiving when portrayed as a Christmas movie. The story begins and ends with a familiar Christmas-like feeling. In the beginning we see a man trying to get home to his family for the holidays. As the credits roll, we hear Let it Snow! play the movie out and leaves us with that familiar feeling. One may even argue that Powell’s ability to finally pull his gun on the henchman at the end is in and of itself a Christmas miracle! But the meat of the movie is one of the greatest action movies with one of the greatest villains to date. I think it’s important to not let those aspects of the movie get lost in trying to seek out something in the movie that, at its heart, just isn’t there. By allowing Die Hard to pass as a Christmas movie, we set the bar too low and allow other movies to sneak into the canon that somewhat taint the authentic Christmas movies that belong there. By Die Hard standards, movies like Eyes Wide Shut, Batman Returns, and L.A. Confidential are all considered Christmas movies. That’s troublesome to me. I never think to use the Christmas season as an excuse to pull those types of movies off the shelf to watch, nor should you. Let’s save room every Christmas season for movies like The Family Man starring Nicolas Cage to remind us of the true Christmas Spirit we crave every December. Die Hard is great, but I hate to break it to you, it’s no Christmas movie. Merry Christmas!

We Few, We Happy Few

in Essays by

The streaming world is an embarrassment of riches. Netflix is at the top.  But services like Hulu, Amazon Prime, and a forthcoming Disney streaming service give viewers access to just about anything.  Mubi and Shudder provide a more niche curation. My personal favorite, FilmStruck, is taking its final bow. FilmStruck was the beautiful product of Turner Classic Movies.  They streamed from the Criterion Collection library, as well as films from the Warner Bros. collection, Turner Classic Movies, and a slew of other impressive catalogs. In short, they streamed classic Hollywood, foreign favorites, and indies, from different countries and different time periods.  FilmStruck was adorned with curated lists, double-features, and spotlights of different actors or directors.

From the get-go, I was in love.  The selection was incredible. I had access to films I had always heard of, but were hard to come by on other streaming services.  They eventually added bonus features, like trailers, interviews, behind-the-scenes footage, and commentaries that played over the film.  It was unparalleled, offering perks no other streaming service came close to.

FilmStruck provided something for everybody.  Whether you were wet behind the ears and wanted to see what was out there, or whether you were looking to exhaust a certain director’s filmography (I should have taken advantage of all the Michael Haneke films while I had the chance!), Film Struck had you covered.  Intro films, deep cuts, rare finds; it was all there! We didn’t know how good we had it for the last two years.

I was introduced to the stunning visuals in Michael Powell’s Black Narcissus.  And the unsettling horror of Diabolique.  Where else could I have seen the irreverent genius or Putney Swope? Or catch a glimpse into the bizarre world of Robert Crumb?


  • “A Separation” (2011)
  • “Diabolique” (1955)
  • “Putney Swope” (1969)
  • “Dancer in the Dark” (2000)
  • “Black Narcissus” (1947)

Not only did I see Lars Von Trier’s emotionally naked Breaking the Waves, but I watched Dancer in the Dark as well, perhaps the most harrowing movie I’ve seen.  FilmStruck often featured newer films. I was able to see A Separation, the Iranian film that won best foreign film in 2012.  One of the last movies I watched on there was a revisit of one of my all-time favorite films, Chungking Express.  Taking advantage of a commentary by Asian film critic Tony Rayns.  

You can read a variety of reports speculating why FilmStruck was shut down, or what the future might be for these films.  You won’t find that here.  Just a tribute from a heartsick film fan.  FilmStruck will be missed.  A big hole is left in my cinematic heart.  It’s been good to see prominent members of the film community like Guillermo Del Toro and Rian Johnson speak out for FilmStruck.  Bill Hader pleaded to save it. There’s a petition floating around to save it. And more recently, Criterion announced it would launch its own streaming service.  What films this includes is yet to be seen, but it is hopeful.  Warner is also launching its own service in about a year.  So there is hope.  All I know is that there were over 100,000 subscribers whose film viewing habits have been changed today.  Film Struck will be missed.  Let’s hope there’s a different kind of change in the near future. As long as we continue to enjoy the sensation of feeding our curiosity in the dark, in front of a screen, and sharing our discoveries with others, film will matter.

You might be interested in

Thank You, FilmStruck!

in Essays by

Streaming services are a dime a dozen these days. From Netflix, to Amazon Prime, to Hulu, it seemed like every movie buff out there could find what they want. No generation in history has had as much access to films at the click of a button than we do today. But just when I thought I had seen it all and all of my movie needs were met, FilmStruck came along. 

FilmStruck was a unique streaming service that gave movie lovers access to classic cinema from around the world, including select films from the Criterion Collection. With the ability to watch the special features, commentary, and interviews with most of the movies, it truly offered a unique and thoughtful experience.

Unfortunately, FilmStruck has been shut down. With only around 100,000 subscribers, that wasn’t enough to impress the new management of the AT&T/Time Warner merger. There are talks of a Warner Brothers and Criterion Collection streaming service to launch within the next year and hopefully those will turn out to be solid substitutes. But as a movie lover, this news hurts.

  • The Fallen Idol (1948)
  • Body Heat (1981)
  • The Third Man (1949)

I never had much exposure to films that came out prior to the ’60s. It’s no surprise that Netflix or Amazon isn’t using their home page to promote a black and white film noir from 1948. Or that Walmart and Best Buy aren’t stocking their shelves with Blu Rays and DVDs of remastered works of a foreign director from the 50s. It seems that the big streaming services care about pumping out original content and acquiring the license to stream all of the latest and most popular content. While that isn’t a bad thing in and of itself, it also simultaneously creates a gap for an entire generation of people. We are constantly exposed to new content and this makes it difficult to discover an entire history of film that has helped to shape the movies we love today.  FilmStruck filled a void that I believe most people (including myself) don’t think about often, if at all. 

It was because of FilmStruck that I discovered my love of film noir. The Big Sleep, The Fallen Idol, Touch of Evil, The Third Man, Body Heat, Night Moves, the list goes on. FilmStruck offered something that the other streaming services don’t – a gateway to an entire genre of classic movies that enhance your appreciation of film in ways that most modern day movies can’t. FilmStruck ultimately helped me to gain an appreciation for a different era of film and as a result, has deepened and refined my love for movies. So for that I thank you, FilmStruck. You will be missed. 

You might be interested in

We Few, We Happy Few

FilmStruck was perfect; we are saddened to see it go. Regardless of what the future brings, we will look back

The Art of Exposition

in Essays by

Exposition often reveals a lot about a director’s confidence in his or her audience, as well as in themselves. After I finished reading Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, I have been thinking about exposition more intensely. After comparing it to the film, I realized just how differently the story could have been told on the big screen. The film essentially follows the plot and story of the book but without any narration or characters explaining just what in the world is going on. For someone who saw the movie before reading the book, the last 20 minutes of that film had me completely lost: how was I supposed to interpret what I was seeing? At the same time, however, I remember being intrigued and wanting more. It begged for multiple viewings to decipher what I had just witnessed. My quest to find out what Kubrick was trying to convey occupied me for a number of days. I found myself knee-deep in blogs and YouTube videos hoping to find even a shred of an explanation.

Upon finishing the novel, I was baffled at just how easy it reads. I assumed Kubrick told the story the way he did because the source material was just as vague in its storytelling. This could not be further from the truth. Clarke explains the last 20 minutes of the film, along with many components of 2001, in a way that a 12-year old could understand. This experience begged the question: when is exposition necessary? After all, film is a visual medium. A novel has the job of explaining the world in which we are immersing ourselves in through words. People get different things from a film-going experience. Less exposition allows for a much broader interpretation of the subject matter instead of being told what we are supposed to be watching and the message we are supposed to walk away with. My respect for Kubrick and his decision to shoot 2001 the way he did has only grown over the years. I appreciate Kubrick’s effort to give us a completely different experience watching the story unravel visually, rather than having it explained to us like the novel does.

Christopher Nolan is known for his use of practical effects on his large-scale productions and bringing (mostly) original stories to the big screen. Nolan’s recent sci-fi epic, Interstellar, is a prime example of how a story can suffer with too much exposition. Imagine the directors swapping places when considering these two sci-fi epics. I think we would’ve seen a much more novelized version of 2001, and a deep think piece about love transcending time in Interstellar. I am a big fan of Interstellar. In some ways, it is on the same level as 2001, especially the decision to use practical effects on a large-scale voyage. But when you analyze the storytelling aspect, I think Interstellar suffers due to blatant exposition. Anne Hathaway’s character is essentially there to explain the entire message of the film. When a director needs a character to explain exactly what they are trying to convey, something has gone wrong behind the camera. Nolan floods this visually stunning epic with speeches and exposition, most of which is unnecessary. Imagine the entire scene of the Tesseract without Cooper and T.A.R.S. explaining everything they need to do. I felt insulted with how much exposition was going on. I could watch that scene on mute and would be able to understand and piece together on my own what was happening. So why the exposition? Nolan’s biggest weakness in his storytelling is the fear of leaving the audience without answers or without a stable interpretation of his film. He must have a resolution with a complete understanding of the message and facts laid out for the audience instead of encouraging us to figure it out on our own. (I will say that Memento is an exception). We would experience a much more interesting and thought-provoking film if Nolan had chosen to take the “less is more” route in Interstellar.

This article is not meant as a knock on Nolan. Interstellar is just a prime example of how exposition can hurt a great film. I am also not suggesting that every film needs to be as abstract as Kubrick’s 2001. Exposition is of course a necessary tool to help propel a film’s story and characters. But too much or too little is what can prevent a great film from becoming a masterpiece. Directors will always be faced with the battle to balance their trust in the audience with the fear that their message will get lost in the end. The use of exposition is truly an art that differentiates the great storytellers from the best in the business.

The Plight of Toby Jones

in Essays by

You remember that movie about Truman Capote? It was released about 10 years ago. It covers the time he was researching and writing In Cold Blood. Yeah, the one where Sandra Bullock plays Harper Lee. It also has Daniel Craig, Lee Pace, Jeff Daniels, Sigourney Weaver, and a song performance by Gwyneth Paltrow (pre-Country Strong). That one. Oh! You thought I was talking about the one with Catherine Keener and Chris Cooper! The one where Philip Seymour Hoffman (R.I.P) won the Oscar for the titular role. No no, I’m talking about the other Capote movie, Infamous.  The one starring Toby Jones.

Let’s try again. You remember that movie about Alfred Hitchcock, right? It focuses on the making of a single movie–The Birds. It was released in 2012. It has Sienna Miller. Oh! You thought I meant the one with Sir Anthony Hopkins, Scarlett Johansson and Helen Mirren? The one that is centered around Psycho? No, no, no. I’m talking about the one starring Toby Jones.

Hoffman’s Capote was released on September 30th, 2005, on what would have been Truman Capote’s 81st birthday. The film details Capote’s fascination with the quadruple murder of the Clutter family in Kansas in 1959. Infamous premiered at the Venice Film festival 11 months later. After Hoffman won an Academy Award for his portrayal, people were bound to compare Jones’ performance to his. These films ostensibly cover the same ground. In fact, both films portray scenes and dialogue mirroring each other, as if they were copying each other. Both screenplays are based on different biographical works, but the similarities in the films attest to the mythology surrounding the events and people in the 7 year span it took to publish this novel.

I found both to be good films. Capote has a more subdued color palate and certainly a darker, more dour tone. Infamous is more lively, with a soundtrack that could be mistaken for a Woody Allen soundtrack, accompanying vibrant set pieces and characters. Disparity is even more apparent in the film Hitchcock and Jones’ The Girl. Both films focus around the production of an iconic film from Hitchcock’s filmography.  While The Girl offers a more questionable, negative portrayal of Hitch, Hitchcock doesn’t quite offer any valuable insight (and Helen Mirren steals the show). The Girl was released a month before Hitchcock, albeit to a smaller audience on HBO. Both movies received mixed-to-warm reviews, and both portrayals of actors were praised. In fact, Toby Jones was nominated for a Golden Globe while Hopkins was not. Yet, Hitchcock is the film most people know and remember.

What are the odds? Two movies covering the same topic in the same year is certainly not a unique trend in Hollywood. Remember the year The Illusionist and The Prestige, two period pieces about magicians, were released? Or Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached? Or White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen?  Linear thinking, accidental symmetry, or industry laziness–who knows how this happens?  Regardless, Toby Jones’ credits reflect a career that seems like a carbon copy of Oscar winners…without the statues What makes this case unique is that Toby Jones has been involved in two of these cases, and both times his performance has been rivaled by that of a more popular, well-known actor.  In the years Mr. Jones plays famous historical figures, his movies and performances are overshadowed by bigger movies. They are more or less forgotten, or at best, merely used to prop up the other film. Jones’ performances are reduced to “ the other” Capote/Hitchcock movie. To be fair, not all critics were blinded.  A.O Scott pleads there is no reason to pick one or the other; they both stand out above the pack of biopics.

Is Toby Jones struggling for work? Absolutely not. He is Dobby the Elf in the Harry Potter series. He was in the most recent Hunger Games film. He is in everything from Marvel movies to Muppets movies to creepy horror movies. It is just a raw deal that two of the biggest performances of his career were overshadowed unjustly—even if it was coincidental and bad timing. Is he unappreciated? Certainly not. Melanie Griffith, Tippi Hedren’s daughter, said Jones’ performance was going to send her back into therapy. He is respected by his peers.

I hope you enjoy Toby Jones next time you see him. He only enhances the projects he is a part of.  Do not let his diminutive stature fool you.  He swings for the fences in every performance.  Beyond mere impressions, he embodies characters, bringing nuance to the surface, and does so with an appropriate tone. Let’s just hope he doesn’t have any plans to play Winston Churchill.  Unless he wants to be compared to Brian Cox.

The author would like to thank Emily Walters for her notes.

1 2 3
Go to Top