John McTiernan 1995: Die Hard with a Vengeance

Think Fast. Look alive. Die Hard.

Following the box office disappointment that was Last Action Hero, McTiernan set his eyes upon returning to the series that made him a force to be reckoned with; to the series that made his career and the career of Bruce Willis; to the series that redefined the action movie. In 1995, John McTiernan returned to the directing chair for Die Hard with a Vengeance. 


Watching Vengeance it becomes clear what a good action director McTiernan is. While not as good as the original, it is far superior to the first sequel Die Hard 2. Part 2, directed by Renny Harlin, is not a bad film, and is still better than a lot of the crap that is passed off for action these days but pales in comparison to both the first and third film.  McTiernan brings a level of confidence and fluidity to his action that Harlin could only dream about.

Vengeance takes place in New York, starts with an explosion and sets about a high stakes game of cat and mouse with Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson and Jeremy Irons. There are explosions and chases and fights and one liners and even a few moments of tender and touching moments. But most of all, Die Hard with a Vengeance is an action packed roller coaster ride of a movie that in true McTiernan style barely gives you room to breathe.

Not that the first Die Hard was completely serious, but here the comedy is greater and more in the foreground of this film. In Last Action Hero McTiernan satirized the action film and all the elements that went along with them. In Vengeance it seems that he's taken that satire and used it subliminally within his second take of Detective John McClane's saga. This is a clever move as the aftermath of Die Hard had left a wake of so many copycats that the genre was beginning to feel stale. To make a third Die Hard one must realize that it is an absurd proposition to say that this could be happening a third time to the same guy. But the film never takes itself seriously and allows for that satire and general humor to liven up the pace and ease up the tension of the action (and it doesn't hurt that the ingenious story allows for McClane to be integral to the plot).

The acting throughout the film is top notch, with a few minor performances regulated to the background that aren't up to the standards of the rest of the cast. Jackson, Irons and Willis are terrific and Irons makes an almost as good bad guy as Alan Rickman did in the first film and a much better villain than in the second instalment. McTiernan knows how to direct actors and has no problem pulling out expert performances from them.

Michael Kamen returns to the chair as composer and creates a score that has echoes of the original score but is completely new, original and just as thrilling. While not as memorable as the original's the theme is still one that has stuck in my head since I first saw this film in theatres. The cinematography is up to the usual McTiernan standards by which I mean excellent; sweeping shots, great angles, fluid, and eye-pleasingly framed.

The editing is tight, and while the film runs over two hours it sure doesn't feel like it.  The costumes work well, and considering the film was shoot 17 years ago you would think the scenes in Harlem would date the film, but they don't. The Harlam hoods look like they would look today, which as I say often, is always a good thing. The make-up is good too, with Jackson and Willis gradually looking more and more tired and destroyed as the movie progresses. And there is an ample amount of blood in the film, although it does feel held back compared to the first part (and even the second).

With Die Hard with a Vengeance, John McTiernan officially solidified himself as one of the greatest living action directors, one who could give the visually stunning but overrated Michael Bay a lesson or two. Like almost all his other films, Vengeance is an action packed thrill ride that can be watched over and over and will keep you laughing and entertained each time. I saw Vengeance three times n the theater on it's original release, a few times on VHS, a few more times on DVD and stop and watch it whenever I see it is on TV.

When it comes to action, John McTiernan is the man! Yippie Kay Yay!!!


Film Rating: 83%

Breakdown (How Last Action Hero scored 83%):

Production Design: 9 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 9 out of 10
Originality: 7 out of 10
Costumes: 8 out of 10
Directing: 9 out of 10
Editing: 8 out of 10
Acting: 8 out of 10
Music: 9 out of 10
Script: 8 out of 10

John McTiernan 1993: Last Action Hero

The big ticket of '93.

After a trio of amazing films, John Mctiernan faltered with Medicine Man. While not a bad film it wasn't a great one either; more dramatic than his previous work but also not as well put together. And made all the worse by following three masterpieces of cinematic history. So when Last Action Hero;was announced as his next film, things were looking good.

McTiernan would be reunited with Schwarzenegger in a big budget action film (that he has proven so adept at) witha  script by Shane Black (of Lethal Weapon fame). How could it falter? It seemed like a guaranteed hit. But there was a slight hitch with the release date, June 18th, 1993. A worse release date couldn't have been chosen, as it was one week after the phenomenon that was Jurassic Park.

Jurassic Park tore up the box office and devoured everything around it. Last Action Hero didn't stand a chance. It didn't help that critics gave it bad reviews either, but it was mainly Spielberg and the dinosaurs that got in it's way. Which is a real shame because this movie deserves better than it got then. I loved this movie on release and all these years later, when I'm all growed up, I still love it.

It may not be high class art but it sure delivers enough thrills, spills, laughs and frills. It's a welcome return to action for McTiernan and one of Arnold's better performances. While not up to the same standards as McTiernan's trifecta of treasures, it still is a pretty decent movie.

British thespian Charles Dance does a fantastic job and almost steals the movie from the other actors as the main baddie. But in a movie where there are tons of fabulous actors in various roles (Anthony Quinn, F. Murray Abraham, Ian McKellan) it's hard to keep the limelight. As I mentioned earlier, even Arnold is pretty good in this, playing Jack Slater and himself. Austin O'Brien plays Danny, and at 12 years old, pulls off the role fairly well. There are parts where he seems a little wooden, but he handles the emotional scenes pretty well.

The story tells of a boy who gets sucked into a movie and rides along with his hero, Jack Slater. He goes along on missions, becomes Slater's partner and continually tries to convince Slater that he is in a movie. The movie is also a satire on hollywood and the action genre and has some truly funny moments. Ian McKellen is a hoot and some of the in-jokes are hilarious. Arnold trying to pronounce his last name is priceless.

And the action is big and large too (well mostly). The first hour and a bit of the movie is set in the make believe world of Jack Slater. The action is loud, crazy and non-stop. It's adrenaline rush after adrenaline rush with tons of laughs in between and during. When the movie switches to the real world, the action becomes grittier. It feels more real, and the humor is mostly gone.  McTiernan delivers a sharp contrast between the real world and the fictional one and makes the audience feel and know the difference between the two. But whether in the fictional world or not, the action is directed with the kind of flare and expertise that McTiernan had proven to be so good at before.

The editing works for the movie, but it could of been a little tighter. The cinematography was as usual in McTiernan's films, visually stunning and pleasing to the eye. The score is fun and action packed but is overshadowed by the songs that appear throughout the film. Aerosmith, Alice and Chains AC/DC and a slew of other hard rocking bands dominate the soundtrack and stick in your head much longer than the actual score.

The costumes work well and feel timeless but the makeup effects don't hold as well. Not that the make up is bad, it's just that the film is targeted to younger audiences which brings down the violence substantially.  Not that there needs to be violence, but this is an action packed film, directed by the guy who did Die Hard and it should be bloodier. Not to much, but at least a little bit more than what we are given.

This marketing to a younger audience is really what brings Last Action Hero down and is really the only thing that does in this otherwise great movie. Everything else is remarkably well done but the PG rating ruins what could of been a better picture. It is not only the lack of blood but also the few moments scattered though out that don't hold up as well as the rest of the film. And it as all these moments that are geared towards youngsters. A scene when a bad guy dies via ice cream cone, or dogs standing in a pyramid, or the over inclusion of the kid. Scenes like these I loved when I was younger but now I could do with out, at least in this movie.

These juxtaposition of these family friendly scenes with the others is very noticeable and take the viewer out of the film for a moment but thankfully they are few and far between. Last Action Hero is John McTiernan light. It's the same balls to the wall action extravaganza he delivered before, but without the hard R-rated edge. So if you are looking for something light, something that will make you laugh and keep you entertained for two hours, possibly with the whole family; or if you like to see hollywood be satirized; or you just like action or Arnold or both, you cannot and will not go wrong with Last Action Hero.


Film Rating: 75%

Breakdown (How Last Action Hero scored 75%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 8 out of 10
Originality: 7 out of 10
Costumes: 7 out of 10
Directing: 8 out of 10
Editing: 7 out of 10
Acting: 7 out of 10
Music: 8 out of 10
Script: 7 out of 10

John McTiernan 1992: Medicine Man

He turned his back on civilization. Only to discover he had the power to save it.

Coming off three of the best movies of the last five years, John McTiernan was making a name for himself as the forerunner as possibly the greatest living action director alive, or at least one of. But in 1992 he changed gears and went for a more drama based film. Not that there weren't action sequences, and not that there weren't moments that thrilled, but Medicine Man relied more on drama than anything McTiernan had done before.

Nomads featured a hefty amount of drama, but was a horror movie. Die Hard was a straight up action flick but had some amazing dramatic moments in regards to the characters. The Hunt for Red October featured more drama than all his previous pictures combined. And in all those pictures the drama that took place amongst all the other scenes was touching, heartfelt and well handled by McTiernan.

Unfortunately, especially coming off his last three films, Medicine Man is a serious let down. Starring Sean Connery and Lorraine Bracco, Medicine Man starts off just like any other McTiernan film. An airplane lands, Bracco walks through the airport and by credits end the story is rolling. The story: deep in the heart of a South American jungle a scientist, played by Connery, has discovered the cure for cancer, only he can't duplicate the results. At the same time, a road is coming through the jungle and threatens to destroy the only means of evidence that could replicate the results.

Sounds like a good story, no? McTiernan and Connery, a great team no? So why does Medicine Man falter? Why does it and McTiernan not live up to it's potential? First and most importantly is the amount of 'cheese' that comes along with this movie. There is an exuberant amount of cheesy moments here and they are all come courtesy of Lorraine Bracco.


Bracco's character arrives in the jungle to meet Connery and become his assistant. When they meet she describes her self as a PHD holding, top award winning scientist herself and to top things off, she is running the company that she and Connery work for. Then as the movie progresses she becomes the typical 'scared female' we have seen so many times before. Her character does a a 180, and even though she is good with vials and research, she all of a sudden is scared of animals, shrieks like a baby and does things that a scientist would never ever do.

Her performance is okay, but gets a little annoying at times. Which is not so much Bracco's fault, and more due to the story and what it gives for her character. The other performances in the film are much better and less heavy handed. Most are performed by unknowns who make a convincing native tribe (and might even be one they wres that good), but it is really Connery that elevates the film. As usual he brings a presence to the screen that is spellbinding and propels you from one moment to the next by his voice alone. Connery is the greatest thing about this film.

Now, as I was saying, Bracco's character was let down by the conventionalism of the story. There was potential to be had here in regards to the story but unfortunately MctIernan can't hold it together. In a film about scientists discovering the cure for cancer, he focuses in on a love story. In a story that is touching on issues of how we as a people are destroying ourselves, he focuses in on a love story. Not that the romance that occurs is played up on the front stage, or that the two leads ever kiss, but it lingers in the background and by films end is really all that is remembered.

In his past three films McTiernan managed to make them timeless. Medicine Man feels like it is straight out of the early 90's. The costumes and hairstyles are seriously dated and take away from the enjoyment of the film. Bracco's jeans makes me think while watching the film 'I can't believe people used to wear clothes like that'. Thoughts like that shouldn't happen when enthralled in a movie.

The editing is okay, but nothing special and no where near the standards that McTiernan delivered previously. It's a decent cut and splice job with nothing creative about it and for the most part well done in reagards to continuity. Expect here: One night Bracco goes to sleep, in a shirt and panties and when she wakes up in the morning she is in those truly awful jeans. How did she do that? Magic?

Other than Connery, the best part of Medicine Man is the music and the cinematography. As usual, McTiernan has lined himself up with an ace cinematographer and delivered some stunning shots throughout, on top and outside of the jungle. Great scenery which is set to great music by the ever reliable Jerry Goldsmith. Pulse pounding rhythms and great thumping bass lines are present throughout and the music is a joy to listen to, propelling the story and the film in a great many ways.

On it's own, Medicine Man is a fun if forgettable adventure film. Nothing special but it is enjoyable and does keep you entertained. With humor and romance and a few thrills and spills here and there, this rather conventional film passes the time when needed. But as a McTiernan film, coming after his last three, one would wish for something better than this. Medicine Man, along with Nomads, makes it seem like his skill and talent are there only when he is directing action. Maybe that's a little unfair; Nomads was a first feature and other than that Medicine Man  was really his first disappointment, and it isn't even that bad. I'll reserve my judgements then for the future.


Film Rating: 66%

Breakdown (How Medicine Man scored 66%):

Production Design: 7 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 5 out of 10
Originality: 7 out of 10
Costumes: 5 out of 10
Directing: 7 out of 10
Editing: 6 out of 10
Acting: 7 out of 10
Music: 8 out of 10
Script: 6 out of 10

John McTiernan 1990: The Hunt for Red October

The hunt is on.

When the rights were optioned for Tom Clancy's novel The Hunt for Red October the search for a director began. An action, thriller about submarines, with close quarters and tight spaces needed a director with a keen eye. Who better than the man responsible for the action spectacle known as Die Hard. In that film, John McTiernan took Bruce Willis and placed him in a skyscraper, filled with small spaces: an elevator shaft, air ducts, tight hallways. Die Hard was not only a box office success, but an extremely well reviewed film and one that changed the way action movies were being made.

So with the excellent Predator and the even better Die Hard behind him, McTiernan went on to make Red October, and like his two previous efforts, The Hunt for Red October excelled on all levels. The acting, the effects, the story, the editing, the cinematography, the music and the directing were all top notch and proved that McTiernan was no flash in the pan director.

I hadn't seen Red October in a few years, and since it's début on VHS I have probably seen it 8 or 9 times. Even still, 22 years after it debuted in theatres, Red October had me thrilled from the beginning to the end. The movie felt shorter than it's 134 minute run time and had me glued to my seat from minute one.

Like his three earlier films, McTiernan starts the film with the protagonist arriving or on the move. Nomads had Pierce Brosnan arriving at a hospital; Predator had Arnold Schwarzenegger arriving in the jungle, Die Hard had Bruce Willis landing in L.A. Here we have two protagonists. First we meet Sean Connery, speaking Russian, and within two cuts he gives orders to get his submarine on the move. Then we meet Alec Baldwin, playing Jack Ryan, who packs a bag and leaves for the airport. In fact, the airplane scenes and the airport scenes at the beginning seem to be directly taken out of Die Hard and feel very much like the opening of that very movie. And again, like those three movies, Red October ends with Baldwin leaving, this time on an airplane.

Red October's story is about a Russian submarine that appears to be heading to American soil, for reasons unknown, and Jack Ryan who is the only one who seems to be able to figure it his motives. The movie begins as a tense thriller and by the end is an all out action film that mimics (not in a bad way) Die Hard and all the things that made it great. There is a multitude of thrilling moments, poignant character moments and fantastic action sequences. The Russians actually speak Russian and in one amazing zoom shot, it changes to English. As a Russian officer reads from a book, the camera zooms in on his lips and mid-sentence he changes from Russian to English. Absolutely phenomenal.

Both Connery and Baldwin are fantastic, bringing both gravitas and bravado to their roles and performances. The supporting cast is equally good, with roles handled by Scott Glen,, James Earl Jones, Sam Neill and James Earl Jones. Not a poor performance is on hand and this is key as most of the action takes place in small spaces that would make the acting even more noticeable, if of course the acting wasn't very good.

It would be hard to tell one submarine from another, but McTiernan and cinematographer Jan de Bont do an amazing job, using colours to distinguish between the interior of the u-boats. The underwater photography is exceptional and the effects hold up to this day. In fact, watching The Hunt for Red October feels like watching a movie that was made this year. The hairstyles, the make-up, the costumes all seem so modern. McTiernan must of learned something about this after Nomads as his pictures since then have held up incredibly well. The music too is utterly unforgettable, mixing a pulse pounding symphonic score with classic Russian hymns.

McTiernan doesn't waste a second or shot in this film. Red October is tightly edited and keeps the audience propelled all the way through. The intriguing story, the awesome music, the great acting (the ever so fantastic presence of Sean Connery is never a bad thing) and the awesome cinematography, with it's long takes, obscure angles and great colours, really do make The Hunt for Red October an exciting and thrilling event.


By 1990 McTiernan had been responsible for three of the biggest grossing movies between 1987 and 1990. At the time, two of the three movies were incredibly well received by critics and by the mid 2000's the third one joined in the praise. These three movies set a template for the action films that would follow in their wake. As well, all three films became franchises. Predator has three films (five if you count the Alien/Predator hybrids); Die Hard has four (with a fifth on the way); Jack Ryan has four (also with a fifth on the way).

So what would McTiernan do next? Would his next film be on par with his track record so far? Would he stick to action or return to the horror genre, or maybe try something completely different? These questions, along with many others, would be answered in 1992...


Film Rating: 94%

Breakdown (How The Hunt for Red October scored 94%):

Production Design: 9 out of 10
Cinematography: 10 out of 10
Re-playability: 10 out of 10
Originality: 8 out of 10
Costumes: 8 out of 10
Directing: 10 out of 10
Editing: 10 out of 10
Acting: 10 out of 10
Music: 10 out of 10
Script: 9 out of 10

John McTiernan 1988: Die Hard

40 Stories Of Sheer Adventure!

I can't even count the number of times I have seen Die Hard but it has to be at least 15. Man do I love this film. In my humble opinion it has to be the greatest action film ever made. Perfect in every way, and no matter how many times I see it, I can't find anything wrong with it and it entertains just as much as the first time. Released on July 15th, 1988, I was to young to see Die Hard in the theater in it's original release, but since then I have owned it on VHS, twice on DVD and seen it in the theater in a one night only second run.

Having directed Predator, John McTiernan next set his eyes on an adaption of the novel Nothing Last Forever by Roderick Thorp. Predator was a fantastic hybrid of action, science fiction and horror, but like many a modern classic, it was overlooked by the critics at the time of its release. Mctiernan brought a great aesthetic to that film, bringing a unique and original vision to a tried and true storyline. He aimed to do the same to Nothing Lasts Forever. 

Die Hard was a game changer for the action movie. After it's release, and still to this day, it acts as a templete for most action films. It created numerous ripoffs, hundreds of spoofs, has been referenced thousands of times in thousands of things, has had three sequels and at the time of this writing a fourth sequel is in the works.

McTiernan chose to cast Bruce Willis as the lead. At that time he was primarily known as a TV Star, in the hit show Moonlighting. Within a few weeks of it's release, Willis was an A-List, top of the box office mega star. Alan Rickman was cast opposite Willis, as the villain, and steals the picture from everybody he shares the screen with. He delivers an utterly breathtaking and intense performance. He's so good that even though he's the bad guy, you can't help but like him. Not a single character in Die Hard is wasted and they all bring their own humor and charm to the movie. Reginald VelJohnson is great as Al,  Paul Gleason is hilarious as the Sergeant. The two FBI agents are fantastic and Alexander Gudunov is formable counterpart as Rickman's second in command.

Like Predator, McTiernan starts the action right away and doesn't let up till the end of the film. He gives you a a moment to breathe hear and a moment there, but then he throws everything but the kitchen sink at you in terms of action. There are great oneliners, moments of humor, and moments of great emotion. It's a testament to McTiernan that he can make you feel for the characters as much as you do with the balls to the wall action that occurs.

McTiernan skillfully weaves the story and the characters together, with nary a plot hole to be seen.
The film is shot in glorious 2.35:1 widescreen and has stupendous special effects. The cinematography is stunning and captures every cramped space, every floor and every nook and cranny of the office tower so perfectly that the setting almost becomes a character in and of itself. The explosions, the blood and the fighting all looks real too. When someone falls out of the building near the end, even 24 years later, it actually looks like he is falling 40 stories. It looks so real and has stuck with me all these years; and I am still amazed when I see it.

McTiernan and his editor did a phenomenal job with Die Hard. Every scene is tightly knitted together and helps propel the story and keep the audience involved. At times it keeps long shots going while at other times the editing is fast and furious. The music by the sadly missed Michael Kamen is top notch and should of won the Oscar for 1988. Mixing a pulse pounding symphonic score with Beethoven's Ode to Joy was an inspired and brilliant move. Absolutely incredible!

McTiernan, who did a fantastic job with Predator, has topped himself here with Die Hard. The script, the casting, the music, the editing, the cinematography, the action, the humor, the pace, the effects, the one liners, the characters, the direction couldn't be better. Not before and not since has there been an action movie as good as Die Hard. The sequels were all fun and enjoyable but none were as good as the original.

This being McTiernan's third film, and having watched all three in a row I noticed a trend that he has kept up with in all three. All the films begin with the hero/main character arriving in the opening shot. Pierce Brosnan arrives at a hospital in Nomads and gets the story rolling (not quite the opening shot, but close enough). In Predator Arnold and Company arrive in the Jungle in a Helicopter and in Die Hard Willis arrives in L.A. on an airplane. Then each movie finishes with a shot of the hero leaving the scene of action. Lesley-Ann Down leaves the city in Nomads, Arnold flies out of the jungle via helicopter and Willis drives away from the building in a limo.

McTiernan doesn't linger on useless moments. He starts the movie off right away with the action and the hero and the set up and then when the hero wins, if they win, the movie ends. There is no lingering on characters, or happy moments or extraneous scenes that the viewer sits through. The action ends, the movie ends, that's it, that's the McTiernan way. Would he do it again in his next movie? What would his next movie be? Could it top Die Hard? Or equal it? To answer those questions we'd have to wait until March of 1990 when his fourth film was released.


Film Rating: 97%

Breakdown (How Die Hard scored 97%):

Production Design: 10 out of 10
Cinematography: 10 out of 10
Re-playability: 10 out of 10
Originality: 9 out of 10
Costumes: 9 out of 10
Directing: 10 out of 10
Editing: 10 out of 10
Acting: 10 out of 10
Music: 10 out of 10
Script: 9 out of 10

John McTiernan 1987: Predator

It came for the thrill of the hunt. It picked the wrong man to hunt.

Studio execs were impressed by Nomads, a non studio film that felt bigger than it actually was, in 1986. Directed by first timer John McTiernan, it showed promise, skill and an attention to detail that some directors seem to lack. So when a script called Hunter was greenlit at Twentieth Century Fox the producers offered it to McTiernan, which he gladly accepted. The title Hunter was changed to Predator and on the 12th of June, 1987 John McTiernan's first studio picture was released to the world.

My memories of Predator have always been good ones. It was always my favorite Arnold movie and whenever it comes on television I can't help but stop and watch until the closing credits roll. It is an action and science fiction and horror movie all rolled into one. It is fun, exciting, tense and in one word: fun. It made Arnold an even bigger star and made McTiernan a director to contend with. So how does Predator hold up?

Having just watched it in all it's widescreen glory I can say that Predator has held up remarkably well after 25 years. And yes, it is still my favorite Arnold movie, bar none. I love this film! The story concerns a group of Special Ops American Military men on a mission to rescue prisoner's in a South American Jungle. Suffice to say things don't go as planned and they end up being hunted by an alien we know as the predator.

From the opening shot to the final cut, McTiernan keeps the action going. He doesn't allow for the audience to breath for more than a second before more action is thrown at you. For the first 30 minutes he plays  Predator like a straight up action slash war film. The action is epic and just plain awesome. The village invasion has to be one of the greatest staged action sequences of all time.

Once the predator comes into play, the film becomes more science fiction than war, with fantastic gore and amazing special effects. The predator design has become legendary and it's easy to see why. Even in 2012 its design looks like it was designed yesterday. In fact the whole movie feels modern and really hasn't dated a day.

As I said, McTiernan keeps the action going continually throughout the film. In my opinion, he has created the near perfect film. Amazing cinematography from first shot to last, amazing editing, a pitch perfect cast and amazing one liners from the whole cast, not just Arnold. When Richard  Chaves says to Jesse Ventura 'You're bleeding', ventura says 'I ain't got time to bleed". Chaves' dumbstruck reaction is priceless. Arnold nails a guy to the wall and says 'Stick Around', priceless.

As I said the editing in Predator is perfect. No bad cuts, no mismatched shots and a perfect running time. McTiernan, along with his cinematographer, have created some truly stunning visuals here. When Carl Weathers jumps out of the helicopter we follow him down and through the twists and turns of the jungle all in one take. A shot of Arnold walking through the jungle has him pass the camera which then pans up and up and up and even further to reveal a dead body high up in the trees.

When it comes to the violence, McTiernan doesn't hold back here; arms blown off, skinned bodies, countless deaths, blood, guts, spines, skulls and gunfire galore. Predator gets a hard R rating and really makes the film better in doing so. If Predator was made today I can guarantee that it would be rated PG-13.

Arnold is amazing in this movie too. Under McTiernan's skillful direction it feels plausible that by the movies end that Arnold would be the only person who could go face to face with the predator. (On a side note, having watched this again I now see even more how Predators paid homage and respected this movie).

The music, by Alan Silvestri, is pitch perfect too. Not a bad cue to be heard. It is pulse pounding and action packed from second one to the end of the credit roll. Like the predator himself, the music has become classic and is almost a template on how to achieve perfection in composing a soundtrack.

When Predator was released it didn't do very well with the critics, but since then it has garnered more praise than negativity. In my opinion, like a few other classics of the cinema, this stems from Predator being ahead of it's time. Had it come out a few years later it would of scored much better. The reason it is so well received today is because of how well it holds up. Modern action films are still copying its templete. Like I said earlier, Predator feels like it could of been released within the last year (something wich could not be said about Nomads).

There have been four movies since Predator that feature the predator but none have been as good as this one. This is a testamant to the skill of John McTiernan. With his second feature under his belt, and the first for a major hollywood studio, McTiernan looked to have a promising future ahead of him. And so it was that in 1988 his stature grew even more as his next picture went on to redefine the action movie as we know it...


Film Rating: 93%

Breakdown (How Predator scored 93%):

Production Design: 10 out of 10
Cinematography: 9 out of 10
Re-playability: 10 out of 10
Originality: 8 out of 10
Costumes: 9 out of 10
Directing: 10 out of 10
Editing: 10 out of 10
Acting: 8 out of 10
Music: 10 out of 10
Script: 9 out of 10

John McTiernan 1986: Nomads

If you've never been frightened by anything, you'll be frightened by this.

Having just watched John McTiernan's first film, Nomads, I have plenty to say. Released on the 7th of March, 1986, Nomads was written and directed by McTiernan. It's a supernatural thriller/horror film starring a pre-Bond and post-Steele Pierce Brosnan. It's a low budget movie, eerie at some parts and cheesy at other parts. For a first time feature, it is actually quite well done but 22 years later it has dated significantly.

Had I watched this anywhere from 1986 to 1996 it wouldn't have felt so dated. But alas, I watched it in 2012 and found the distinct 80's feel to be a detriment to the movie. With that aside, it is a fairly well made feature film, competently directed and has a propelling storyline.

The movie starts with Brosnan arriving at a hospital in a delirium. He can't be controlled, he has blood all over him and he is speaking in French. A female doctor, played by Lesley-Anne Down, is treating him but just before he dies he attacks her and whispers something in her ear. From then on, Down begins to relive the last week of Brosnan's life, and together with the audience, she begins to piece together the events that led to his death.

Brosnan plays a Frenchman for no apparent reason. His performance is pretty good, as they usually are ,but his accent slips from French, to Irish to something in between. The rest of the cast holds their own and deliver some solid performances but many of those performances are hampered by the really dated costumes and make-up, specifically the gang that Brosnan follows. It's not often that costumes can ruin a movie but they come awfully close in this film. It's a terrible, absolutely terrible, 80's look that takes away from the movie.

Which is a real shame for McTiernan has crafted a pretty eerie canvas here. Long shots and moody corridors, with an intriguing story and some creepy visuals. But again, the costumes get in the way. It's not only the costumes though. The music too is awfully dated. Bill Conti created some great atmospheric music here, but Ted Nugent totally destroys all that atmosphere with his 80's guitar and appalling songs that make way to frequent an apperance. I don't say this lightly, but Nomads would be much much better if it wasn't for the 'stuck in 1986' music, make-up and costumes.

Two other problems stuck with me as the end credits began to roll. The first was the real lack of an ending for Down's character. Without giving to much away, her story just ends. The second problem was an extended slow motion sequence about 15 minutes in. The scene has glass shattering and Down passing out. This scene goes on way to long and takes place entirely in slow motion. At first its cool and interesting but by the time the scene ends it is overdone and boring.

Other than that, McTiernan does a pretty good job on Nomads, especially as a first film. I shouldn't hold the dated 80's feel against him but I do. The mark of a good film (if not a great one) is that it feels timeless no matter when it is set. Case in point: Ferris Bueller's Day Off. The direction is solid, the cinematography is beautiful, with the camera weaving itself perfectly through the well designed sets. The acting is not half bad and the story is original and intriguing for the most part.

Nomads is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination but it does show some real promise for McTiernan and boy does he deliver come 1987.


Film Rating: 60%

Breakdown (How Nomads scored 60%):

Production Design: 5 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 5 out of 10
Originality: 7 out of 10
Costumes: 5 out of 10
Directing: 7 out of 10
Editing: 6 out of 10
Acting: 7 out of 10
Music: 5 out of 10
Script: 6 out of 10

John McTiernan: A Primer

Well, it's time to review John McTiernan. Some of you are saying who? Who is John McTiernan? Well, my fellow readers, John McTiernan is the director responsible for, in my opinion, not only the greatest movie in the greatest action hero of all times whole oeuvre, but the greatest action movie ever. That action hero is Arnold, his best movie Predator. But even greater still was Die Hard.

John McTiernan was born in New York in 1951. At the age of 26 he wrote and directed a little seen movie that helped get his career rolling. From there he directed 3 of the biggest action films of the late eighties and early nineties. He continued making successful films through the nineties but just as the new century began his run of success came to an end.

Now I haven't seen all his movies yet. Over the years I have seen 8 of his films, either on television or in the theater, which leaves three that I have never had the pleasure of viewing. I'm excited for his debut film, after all this is what got him Predator, which led to Die Hard and then to The Hunt for Red October. That's the best Arnold Movie, the best action movie and the best Jack Ryan movie all in a row. Wow!!!

In 1993 he directed the under rated Last Action Hero, and followed that with the second best of the Die Hard films. In 1999 he directed the Thomas Crown remake, but in 2002 he followed it with Rollerball.  Now I haven't seen Rollerball yet, but I hear just awful things about it. Following that he directed Basic, an absolute awful movie staring John Travolta. In 2006 he got into legal troubles and hasn't made a film since.

So now it's time to watch and review the cannon (so far) of John Mctiernan. Four of the eight that I've seen are distant memories now, so it'll be fun to watch them and see if my opinions have changed. The three I haven't seen I have high hopes for (okay, not Rollerball, but the rest). So come follow along as I immerse myself into the legendary world of a truly great action director.

To truly critique McTiernan's work I have to start from the beginning. And that beginning is March 7th, 1986. That's the day that Nomads is released. And so I bid you farewell as I am about to get comfortable on the couch, with a pillow behind me and a cool drink at my side and Nomads, loading up in the player...

Conan the Destroyer

The most powerful legend of all is back in a new adventure.

My memories of Conan the Destroyer were that it paled in comparison to Conan the Barbarian. Barbarian I remember being a well made balls to the wall action flick. Destroyer I remember being a terrible, boring and cheap sequel to it's predecessor. Having recently watched both I can say I was wrong about both. Barbarian was not as good as I remember it. Slow, not that much action, not to much to recommend. Destroyer on the other hand was better than I remember it, not to say it's a good movie, or even that it's better than Barbarian, just that it was better than I remember it.

I remember this film being ridiculously cheesy and corny throughout. From the story to the special effects to the acting, my memory was telling me there was nothing good about this film. Having watched it in a crappy televised pan & scan version a few times in my youth I can say that my opinion of Conan the Destroyer was not fully formed.

There aren't many good things about Conan the Destroyer, but somethings do stand out over others. The cinematography is gorgeous with it's widescreen shots of desserts landcapes and magical sets. Some of the sets look quite good too, while others look like they have come straight out of the low budget world of the original Star Trek.

Arnold's acting has improved from Barbarian too. Not that he's a good actor here, just better than he was in the last film. He delivers his lines better than he did in Barbarian and he wields the sword faster and more confidentially than he did before. And like the first film, there really is no one else who one can think of that would be a better Conan than Arnold. But unlike the first film, there are no supporting characters that deliver good performances. The acting is uniformly bad throughout. Tracey Walter, who plays Malak, Conan's sidekick is god awful and Olivia D'aba doesn't fare much better. Interestingly enough, I remember Grace Jones being the worst thing about this film but she actually comes off better than half the actors that come and go throughout the film.

The last positive thing about Conan the Destroyer is the music. Once again scored byBasil Poledouris, the music is epic and enjoyable and features the classic Conan theme from the first film. In Barbarian I found that the music, although good, was misplaced for the most part. This time around, the music suits the scenes a lot better than before. With soft moments, loud moments, thrilling moments, sad moments and romantic moments, Conan the Destroyer's music is a well crafted, enjoyable score that makes the movie better than it should be.

The bad things about this movie are endless. I've already mentioned how there is not a good performance to be had from anyone, and how some of the sets look incredibly cheap and fake. I know that this film is 18 years old but the original looked better than this one did, so there is really no excuse to some of the shoddy special effects that appear throughout.

For example, when Conan is fighting a lizard like creature in a castle (don't ask) somewhere in the middle of the film, the lizard looks like the lizard creature Kirk fights in a classic episode of Star Trek. By that I mean, it looks incredibly fake. I can't believe the crew, the actors or anyone in the audience could take that seriously. And then when Conan and company have escaped the castle and are in a boat, the blue screen effects are really some of the worst that I have ever seen.

Then there is the story that is just plain weak. Both Conan films featured weak stories, but this one is just to far out there. Barbarian tried to place Conan in our world; Destroyer seems at times to  forget this and goes to far into stupidity and mysticism. And there are some extremely cheesy jokes and set pieces scattered throughout. I don't think I could ever forget the moment with Conan and the camel, but man do I wish I could.

Mako, who returns as the wizard from the first film, has to be the worst and most useless wizard I have ever seen. The only thing he does here is use his 'powers' to close a door. What kind of wizard is that and why even have him in the film?

But the worst thing about Conan the Destroyer is that unlike the first film, this one is rated PG. What made the first Conan good, in a sense, was the violence, the sex, the gore. This movie gets rid of all of that and replaces it with annoying characters and corny jokes that don't work. Why did the producers do this? Especially since the first film was a huge hit. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather see Arnold stab a guy with a sword than making stabbing motions towards a camera over and over again.

So if you've never seen this movie, but need to see everything Conan or everything Arnold then I'm sure you will see this one, but otherwise stick to the first one, if even that. There are better Conan style adventures out there and Arnold has made so many better movies. After all these years I finally saw this film again, and upon completion it has become abundantly clear why Arnold never made another one.

Film Rating: 48%

Breakdown (How Conan the Destroyer scored 48%):

Production Design: 4 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 4 out of 10
Originality: 4 out of 10
Costumes: 6 out of 10
Directing: 4 out of 10
Editing: 4 out of 10
Acting: 4 out of 10
Music: 7 out of 10
Script: 4 out of 10

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

He conquered an empire with his sword. She conquered HIM with her bare hands.

***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***
***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***

I have fond memories of Conan the Barbarian. I remember Arnold slicing and dicing enemies; I remember James Earl Jones turning into a snake; I remember action and excitement; I remember a non stop barrage of adrenaline pumped carnage; I remember incorrectly.

On the 14th of May, 1982 Conan the Barbarian was unleashed on the public. An R-rated epic starring the bodybuilding giant that was Arnold Schwarzenegger.  I didn't have the pleasure of seeing this movie in the theatres (I was only three!) when it was released, but I did see it a few years later in a wonderfully cropped pan and scan version on VHS. And man o man, did I love this film.

I wasn't the only one. Conan was a box office smash. It did phenomenal in rentals, made Arnold a movie star and spawned a sequel two years later. I have seen the movie many times since the first time, but up until last night, I hadn't seen it since I was probably 13. Maybe at it's time of release it seemed better, or maybe it was just my age, but Conan the Barbarian has not held up well.

To begin with, the wall to wall action I remember wasn't present. The film was slow and for the most part had Conan and his entourage running away or just running. The action sequences were few and far between and when they were there, they were rather short. Even still, what little action occurred, it did satisfy. It was gory, well choreographed and exciting. It's just a shame that instead of more action we are left with more story.

The backbone of the story worked. A young Conan witnesses his village massacred and is made into a slave only to become a hero in the end. But the rest of the plot was incoherent in parts or just plain illogical. What was the purpose of putting Conan on the spinning wheel when he was captured and what did the spinning wheel do? How did he fall in love so fast? Who was the witch/werewolf/spirit he met? Why was he set free? It's moments like these that so easily detract the viewer from being completely immersed within the film.

The acting is no great shakes either. Arnold has never been a great actor, but he does have charisma and certain charm about him. In Conan, his first real role, that charisma and charm is there but his overall performance is poor. But, I do digress, as no one else could of played the part but him. Arnold's physique is perfect for Conan. Really Conan = Arnold! Just one quick question. Why does Conan have a German accent if his parents, village, greater known area, and everyone else he ever met didn't?

The rest of the acting is pretty poor, and if not poor then over the top in every respect, ergo two exceptions. James Earl Jones and Max Von Sydow. Jones's performance is pitch perfect and Sydow, in the two or three minutes that he's in the film, is very memorable. Sandahl Bergman, who plays Conan's love interested, is not a great actress, but she sure does look good in her various modes of dress and undress.

John Milius is not a great director. The final product he produced could of been so much better. The editing is lacklustre and shoddy. Conan runs over two hours but could of been trimmed by at least 20 minutes. Some cuts and editing choices are jarring and loses the audience, leaving them baffled. The music is overly dramatic in parts that really aren't indicative of the feelings the music emotes, although the main theme is fantastic and has become rather a classic all these years later. The cinematography and special effects (for their time) are fantastic and the sets all look real, making Conan a visually pleasing experience.

With it's abundance of gore and nudity, and a charismatic and stellar looking Arnold Schwarzenegger in the lead, Conan does keep one entertained, but just barely. When ever James Earl Jones enters the picture, the movie does pick up, as well when the action kicks in. But both Jones and the action are few and far between. Conan is worth a view if you like Arnold, and it's a cold rainy afternoon, but there are better movies to get your Arnold fix with.

I remember really liking this movie when I was younger; I remember thinking it to be quite good; I also remember thinking the sequel was pretty awful. With my new (and disappointing) perspective of this film, I can only imagine how bad 1984's Conan the Destroyer will be...

Film Rating: 60%

Breakdown (How Conan the Barbarian scored 60%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 5 out of 10
Originality: 6 out of 10
Costumes: 7 out of 10
Directing: 6 out of 10
Editing: 5 out of 10
Acting: 6 out of 10
Music: 6 out of 10
Script: 4 out of 10