They don't make action films like they used to, and while both of these films came before the advent of CGI effects and stunts, I also believe that both helped to define the modern action film. What it comes down to is character.
Die Hard: An action powerhouse so good it is still quoted today, and so influential to filmmaking that it started its own sub-genre (Die Hard on a...). John McCain is a memorable everyman thrown into a situation that is extraordinary, and what shines through is his humanity What makes the film even better is that villains in the film are not dumb. They are constantly on top of things. Plus they have class. The film concludes with some great special effects, but we never forget the humans in the story, and the tight story.
The Fugitive: After a few slam bang action set pieces early on, this film takes a different path, choosing to mellow out a bit, placing suspence and many near-misses over sheer action. It is Andrew Davis' best film, and, again, the characters really shine through. Ford is the perfect every man here, and has to play many of his scenes alone. He's perfect, because we care about him, based on his expressions alone. Equal is Tommy Lee Jones. As Ebert says (when he was good at reviewing films) Jones is on target here in a role that becomes more complicated than it first appears. It is never spelled out exactly when this happens, but it is clear that Gerard continues the pursuit despite believing that his target is innocent. Subtlety in a simple action film? There is a lot of it.
So which of these two films is better. I'll discuss the major weeknesses first.
The weaknesses come in the form of supporting characters. Die Hard gives us two characters that almost derail the film. The newscaster played by Atherton seems to be transplanted from a comedy, as is Paul Gleason's character. I respect Gleason (RIP) but he seems to be playing the same guy he did in The Breakfast Club here as well. ValJohnson turns in the best performance you can expect, but he starts as such a comical sterotype that it does hurt the film a bit.
Some character stereotypes do work, particularly the FBI guys. They work well and their brief role is funny.
In The Fugitive, the supporting player that gives me pause is the guy that plays Dr. Nichols. He is fine, but I heard he wasn't thne first choice for the role. The problem with the guy they got is that he just screams "villain" to me and takes some of the mystery out.
Both of these films bridge the gap between fun action movies and good film making. Which do you think is more influential? Which one do you think is better?
Die Hard: An action powerhouse so good it is still quoted today, and so influential to filmmaking that it started its own sub-genre (Die Hard on a...). John McCain is a memorable everyman thrown into a situation that is extraordinary, and what shines through is his humanity What makes the film even better is that villains in the film are not dumb. They are constantly on top of things. Plus they have class. The film concludes with some great special effects, but we never forget the humans in the story, and the tight story.
The Fugitive: After a few slam bang action set pieces early on, this film takes a different path, choosing to mellow out a bit, placing suspence and many near-misses over sheer action. It is Andrew Davis' best film, and, again, the characters really shine through. Ford is the perfect every man here, and has to play many of his scenes alone. He's perfect, because we care about him, based on his expressions alone. Equal is Tommy Lee Jones. As Ebert says (when he was good at reviewing films) Jones is on target here in a role that becomes more complicated than it first appears. It is never spelled out exactly when this happens, but it is clear that Gerard continues the pursuit despite believing that his target is innocent. Subtlety in a simple action film? There is a lot of it.
So which of these two films is better. I'll discuss the major weeknesses first.
The weaknesses come in the form of supporting characters. Die Hard gives us two characters that almost derail the film. The newscaster played by Atherton seems to be transplanted from a comedy, as is Paul Gleason's character. I respect Gleason (RIP) but he seems to be playing the same guy he did in The Breakfast Club here as well. ValJohnson turns in the best performance you can expect, but he starts as such a comical sterotype that it does hurt the film a bit.
Some character stereotypes do work, particularly the FBI guys. They work well and their brief role is funny.
In The Fugitive, the supporting player that gives me pause is the guy that plays Dr. Nichols. He is fine, but I heard he wasn't thne first choice for the role. The problem with the guy they got is that he just screams "villain" to me and takes some of the mystery out.
Both of these films bridge the gap between fun action movies and good film making. Which do you think is more influential? Which one do you think is better?
