Ranking the Die Hard Films

Since the fifth Die Hard film was released today, I thought it would be fitting to examine the series, which has been around for 25 years.

Die Hard (John McTiernan, 1988)

On a Christmas Eve visit from New York, Officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) plays cat and mouse in a locked-down L.A. skyscraper with a group of terrorists (led by Alan Rickman). Bruce Willis is iconic in one of the best action films ever made. Period.

Die Hard 2 (Renny Harlin, 1990)

McClane fights a unit of rogue military officers (led by William Sadler) who have taken over an airport in Washington, D.C. so that they can extract a foreign drug lord from the U.S. It's a step down from the original, but a worthy follow-up to a genre classic.

Die Hard with a Vengeance (John McTiernan, 1995)

McClane and a man from the neighborhood (Samuel L. Jackson) go head to head with a terrorist (Jeremy Irons) who stages some bombings throughout New York City and robs Wall Street. This is solid entertainment with great chemistry between Willis and Jackson.

Live Free or Die Hard (Len Wiseman, 2007)

With the help of a young computer hacker (Justin Long), McClane must rescue his daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and stop a cyber terrorist (Timothy Olymphant) from accessing important FBI information in the process. It's not on par with the first three, but it's fun seeing an older McClane do what he does best.

A Good Day to Die Hard (John Moore, 2013)

McClane heads to Moscow to find his trouble-making son (Jai Courtney) and becomes entangled in a nuclear weapons conflict, which leads to Chernobyl itself. Despite Willis' lovable on-screen persona, the aging McClane formula seems to have run its course, and the plot is arguably too rushed for its own good.

Ranking & Ratings:

1. Die Hard - ****
2. Die Hard with a Vengeance - ***1/2
3. Die Hard 2 - ***1/2
4. Live Free or Die Hard - ***
5. A Good Day to Die Hard - **

029. Waxwork

029. (23 Jan) Waxwork (1988, Anthony Hickox) 49



Enjoyable, creative horror make-up makes this better than it would be otherwise, but Waxwork is merely atmospheric, not scary. Characters' easy ability to escape from their various horror settings removes a fair amount of suspense. The mayhem of the finale where everyone wildly fights horror villains is delightful.

338. Hobgoblins

338. (29 Dec) /Hobgoblins/ (1988, Rick Sloane) 3



I watched this twice in 2012. It's just that good.

A Fish Called Wanda (1988) **

Don’t call me stupid for not loving this 1988 comedy from director Charles Crichton (with an assist from John Cleese). Yes, it has some funny parts, but it is definitely a film I could have died without having seen (although some man in Denmark did laugh himself to death while watching it).  Perhaps it’s the decade in which it was made (the 80s) that makes it shine a little less brightly for me.  There is something about the hideous fashion and over-synthesized songs of that decade that really irks me, and when it is on full display, as it is here, it is even more distressing because it is forever imprinted (quite literally) in the annals of cinema that the 1980s sucked. 

Written by Crichton and Cleese, this comedy-heist film about four eccentric jewel thieves takes place in jolly old London.  The thieves are led by George (Tom Georgeson), a cockney gangster who picks three of the worst criminals in the world to help him pull the job: Wanda, Otto, and Ken.  His girlfriend Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis) is a complete slut and an even bigger liar. Otto (Kevin Kline) is a pseudo-philosopher and an outright psychopath who pretends to be Wanda’s brother, but is really her jealous lover.  And, then there is Ken (Michael Palin)—a stammering animal lover with absolutely no sense.  When the heist goes awry and George is arrested, the other three scramble to tie up loose ends and engage in wacky acts of betrayal.  In the middle of all this treachery is Archie Leach (Cleese), the barrister working on George’s case who becomes ensnared in Wanda’s sleazy web of lies.  And, no, it is not a coincidence that Cleese chose to name himself after Cary Grant (the real Archie Leach)—he was born 20 miles from Grant’s birthplace and greatly admired him. 

Obviously 1988 was a weak year for the Academy Awards, specifically in the Best Supporting Actor category, because Kline won an Oscar for his turn as Otto.  To me, watching him in this was like taking a class in overacting. If anyone in the movie deserved an Oscar nod it was Palin, and even that would have been a stretch.  Of course his scenes attempting to kill Mrs. Coady (Patricia Hayes) are my favorite, so I think that might skew my point of view.  But really, he is quite hilarious as the murderer of three innocent Yorkshire Terriers.  And, when I come to think of it, the only time I found Kline entertaining was when he was doing a scene with Palin.

The story is entertaining and Cleese’s straight-man act is enjoyable, so I can’t really give A Fish Called Wanda a poor rating. Still, Kline and Curtis’ less than stellar performances are grating to me.  Yet, the wardrobe and music are worse.  Costume designer Hazel Pethig definitely did not benefit from what passed for fashionable in the 80s.  I wonder how much Curtis cringes every time she sees how horrid her wardrobe was.  Oh, and the music (if you can call it that) by John Du Prez is a complete representation of what was wrong about 80s music.

Overall, A Fish Called Wanda is a passable 1980s comedy.  Unfortunately, to watch it you must hear and see everything that makes the decade one of the worst of the Twentieth Century.

 

203. Lincoln

203. (14 Sep) Lincoln (1988, Lamont Johnson) 57



Whenever Lincoln shifts from war politics to family drama, it becomes infinitely better for it. Mary Tyler Moore is outstanding as Mary Todd Lincoln and her descent into madness feels heartbreaking and real. Sam Waterston is less impressive as an ambitious, forceful Abraham Lincoln. There are surely liberties taken here, but Gore Vidal has offered some fascinating insight into these iconic figures.

Admirably, Lamont Johnson films most of this using dim or natural lighting. His color palette is appropriately drab. Despite spanning the course of Lincoln's presidency, this feels far more intimate than epic. It's a genial small-scale biopic.

186. Oliver & Company

186. (02 Sep) Oliver & Company (1988, George Scribner) 42



Only a pre-Disney Renaissance film could adapt plot-driven Dickens and make the story play like an inconsequential video game. Characters hardly have arcs and musical numbers come out of nowhere. At least there's some successful tugging of heartstrings. Oliver is a genuinely adorable main character, worth rooting for even if the film he's in moves too quickly to establish relationships or dramatic stakes. The highlight here is Billy Joel's energetic rendition of "Why Should I Worry?"

156. Poltergeist III

156. (17 Aug) Poltergeist III (1988, Gary Sherman) 25



Lacking the menacing or enigmatic qualities of Poltergeist, this sequel removes the last traces of what made the original film so scary. The ensemble is simply too blasé about the supernatural elements they're faced with. Because they aren't afraid, it's hard for us to feel fear. It doesn't help that the so-called scares involve silly things like puddles, ice and mirrors. Without much inherently disturbing imagery and laughably insincere performances, this feels like a throwaway from the very start.

Double Feature: Heaven Can Wait (1978) and The Accidental Tourist (1988)

Note: Out of the 496 films nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, I'm down to 148 left to see.

Heaven Can Wait:

When he is prematurely sent to Heaven, quarterback Joe Pendleton (Warren Beatty) is forced to inhabit the body of a recently-deceased millionaire. He meets idealist Betty Logan (Julie Christie), falls in love with her, and buys a football team in an attempt to play in the Super Bowl. But he must leave the body, as per the deal he made, and inhabit another - a football player's. As a quarterback once again at the end of the film, he must play until the game is over and try to get Betty back in the guise of a complete stranger. This film is so likable that it's easy to see why the Academy honored it.

The film received nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor (Jack Warden), Best Supporting Actress (Dyan Cannon), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score. It took home one statuette for Best Art Direction.

The Accidental Tourist:

Lawrence Kasdan's adaptation of a noted bestseller features William Hurt as Macon Leary, a travel guide author. After his wife Sarah (Kathleen Turner) divorces him, he meets Muriel Pritchett (Geena Davis), a dog carer/trainer, as he leaves his dog at a kennel so that he can go away for work. Of course, he is reluctantly taken in by the woman and her son when he returns, and he grows to love them. Then his wife shows up to reconcile their marriage upon the finality of their divorce. Will he choose to go back to his wife or start a new one with Muriel? You probably know the answer, but it doesn't change the enjoyable aspects of the film. A.M.P.A.S. likes movies that go down easy, and this one certainly does.

The film received nominations for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress (Davis), Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Score. Davis won a deserved Oscar for her scene-stealing performance.

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 1988

1988

So the much anticipated ranking is:

5. Sigourney Weaver in Gorillas in the Mist
I liked and admired Sigourney Weaver in Gorillas in the Mist. Although I saw the dedication and her commitment to her character, somehow she never really won me over completely, which is extremely unusual for me with a performance by Siggy. She shows the passion and the development of her character wonderfully, she doesn't go too much over the top, except for some scenes. And her scenes with the gorillas are just thrilling. 

4. Jodie Foster in The Accused
Jodie Foster gives a very good and intense performance as Sarah Tobias. Although she's much less effective the second time around, her strength is occasionally captivating and she leaves a lasting impression in the end. Jodie minimises the scenery chewing and her acting is never too much in your face. And her courtroom scene is one of the best acted scenes of Jodie's career. Memorable, strong work.

3. Melanie Griffith in Working Girl

I don't care if it's fashionable or not, I love Melanie Griffith in Working Girl. I sympathized with her and felt for her character throughout the movie, no matter if she was hoovering topless or changing her look or interacting with her men. I laughed with her, got sad with her and I just always wanted her to get to the top. I loved Melanie's clear, almost naive emotions, her optimism, her glowing, funny, joyous personality.

2. Meryl Streep in A Cry in the Dark
Meryl Streep gives an excellent performance as Lindy Chamberlain. Although I'm not as enthusiastic about her in this film as so many others, I can perfectly see why they fell in love with this performance. It's compelling, complex, multi-layered and very-very effective. Some may accuse Meryl of being too calculating and planned, but to me this is one of her most natural and emotional performances, she's a real force on the screen and always a thrill to hear and look at.

1. Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons
Amazing or fantastic or career-best doesn't even begin to describe how brilliant Great Glenn is as Marquise de Merteuil. Each and every movement and word of hers is so great that I just keep marvelling. Naturally, the Academy refused to acknowledge this earth-shattering performance with an Oscar win and yet that tells something about the Academy itself instead of Great Glenn who's simply electrifying. A true masterclass in acting, which makes me think if I should call Great Glenn Brilliant Glenn or Greatest Glenn from now on.

So I can proudly announce

that the winner is...

Glenn Close 

in 

Dangerous Liaisons

Glorious Great Glenn

Final thoughts: A truly interesting, wonderfully rich year, the best comeback I can imagine. :) It was the last review for Siggy and more sadly, Great Glenn (for the time being, I hope) and I'm so glad that they've both come out triumphant at least once (I'm a bit sad that I didn't leave Aliens last for Siggy). The real surprise was Melanie whom I liked way more than last time. I'm glad about her nod though it might seem weird that she got nominated instead of some very-very acclaimed performances (I guess you're very surprised by how much I liked her). But I don't really mind that she got nominated. Jodie Foster was Oscar's choice and I'm kind of baffled by her win, especially with hindsight. She went on to win another Oscar, while Great Glenn and Siggy remained Oscarless. And then there's Meryl who has a renaissance among bloggers with her Lindy Chamberlain performance. I suppose that review was the most anticipated and exciting. I don't think that anyone was surprised by my thoughts on Great Glenn and her subsequent (to me no-brainer) win. :)))

Omissions (never seen Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer but planning to):

• Jamie Lee Curtis in A Fish Called Wanda
• Carmen Maura in Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown

The next year:

• It will be a surprise; I don't know yet. :) It starts on 15th July.  

What do you think? Any thoughts on your mind?

Meryl Streep in A Cry in the Dark

Meryl Streep received her eighth Oscar nomination for playing the infamous Lindy Chamberlain, the Australian woman who claimed that her baby was killed by a dingo in the movie A Cry in the Dark. Although this performance seems to be one of the most celebrated and admired performances and many bloggers pick Meryl for the win nowadays, I don't think it had much of a chance of earn Meryl her third Oscar. Despite winning over critics (and later the jury of the Cannes Film Festival), she wasn't that strong of a contender for the Best Actress prize, I suppose simply because of the fact that her fellow nominees were all Oscarless and she had already won two. But if you really look she gave at the Oscars, she seemed a bit pissed (at least more than usual). Her die-hard fans must be saying that she was pulling for her overdue friend (which I would totally understand). 

I've always found A Cry in the Dark a very compelling and excellently directed picture. I wouldn't put it on my personal Best Picture ballot, but I have always thought highly of it. The director, Frank Schepisi did an excellent job, in my opinion. I especially loved the fact that we could see the reactions of the everyday people who were talking to each other about the case. And the media's part in this case is very well and subtly shown, I never felt that they were screaming directly about the media's fault (I want to say some names who would be but I try to hold myself back...). I also have to mention Sam Neill's extremely strong and effective performance, which had a great deal to do with the movie's success with me. 

However, A Cry in the Dark is clearly about Meryl Streep and her acting abilities. It really was up to her to make this movie great and multi-dimensional. It takes a very special, extremely talented actress to pull that off, but I think we all agree that Meryl is such an actress. It's kind of weird to talk about Meryl Streep in general now that she's a three-time Oscar Winner. First, because we have to get rid of the old habit of writing down "Why can't they just give her that f-ing third?". Second, I'm still quite ecstatic to reminisce about that heart-stopping moment. Besides, what new can you say about Meryl's talent that hasn't been said before? Nothing really. 

The fact is, Meryl often gets parts when peopl say: why her (again)? And then everyone says they couldn't imagine this movie with anyone else. This time I was really wondering how an Australian actress would have done in such a part. However, Meryl made this part her own so much that any thought like that left my mind. She becomes one with her character and we don't see Meryl Streep on the screen anymore, only Lindy Chamberlain, a not too likeable and weird character. 

Lindy Chamberlain is a very tricky character and Meryl made her extremely an complex creature. I lacked the real development in the cases of Jodie, Siggy and Melanie, but boy, was Meryl satisfactory in that way (as well)! I'd say that in this aspect, she even beats Great Glenn's achievement in Dangerous Liaisons. Meryl perfectly showed the changes in her character and she knew exactly what and when to show things to the audience. And strangely enough, I can't say that Meryl is so calculating here. I often point out when she does overcalculate but this time I felt that everything was coming naturally from her, while she was also being extremely aware and careful. 

When Meryl accepted the Australian Film Insitute Best Actress award this year, she joked about how she won two awards for playing two women who were the most hated in their respective countries. And you can actually easily spot the resemblances between these two performances: both of them are very dedicated, determined women who hold onto their beliefs without questioning them. Meryl approached them both with lots of sympathy and yet she unapologetically revealed all the flaws in them and as a result, she created 100% realistic people whose emotions cover a wide range, who act in many different way and who might make wrong decisions sometimes. There's coldness in both ladies and yet somehow you feel sorry for them despite all their mistakes. Above all, Meryl humanises her characters (in Thatcher's and Chambarlain's cases, some might say monsters, not me) and lets us get into these women's heads as much as she did. 

Meryl takes advantage of the situation that the audience knows that Lindy is innocent, while people in the story are uncertain about the even. As a result, Meryl is able to create such tension on the screen, especially in the courtroom scenes. She puts so much emotion into her speeches without trying to make them obvious Oscar clips. And the fact that they turned out to be Oscar clips are more due to Meryl's greatness in them. She doesn't push for your attention and never chooses to chew the scenery, even though the temptation must have been very strong. And no, she never says 'A dingo ate my baby.' :-)  

And yes, the accent: along with Out of Africa's Danish accent, this one seems to be Meryl's most famous. Geraldine Page said years earlier that one can't really believe that Meryl can speak normally. And I actually have to agree. She speaks so naturally and with so much confidence that you really can't decide if she's Australian. 

Meryl also has excellent chemistry with Sam Neill and the two actors support each other very well. It was great that Meryl didn't push to steal all the spotlight and she sometimes stepped back to let Neill have his big scene. They both wonderfully showed how much these couple tries to see God's purposes in everything. They make up such a great couple that it's hard to believe that the real Chamberlains divorced a couple of years later. 

Although Meryl is naturally fantastic here, I didn't really adore her here, at least not as much as I wanted to. This is the kind of performance that people expect you to idolise and you feel weird when you have to say: I loved her but she didn't completely blow me away. I can go on and on about her, say many adjectives that are actually true, but a bit separately and not together, if you know what I mean. It's not that she's not fantastic, it's just that I cannot get as passionate about her as many others. Still, I can't say a bad word about this performance as I really couldn't spot mistakes in it. 

To sum up, Meryl Streep gives an excellent performance as Lindy Chamberlain. Although I'm not as enthusiastic about her in this film as so many others, I can perfectly see why they fell in love with this performance. It's compelling, complex, multi-layered and very-very effective. Some may accuse Meryl of being too calculating and planned, but to me this is one of her most natural and emotional performances, she's a real force on the screen and always a thrill to hear and look at. 

What do you think? The Final Conclusion comes on Friday. :) 

Sigourney Weaver in Gorillas in the Mist: The Story of Dian Fossey

Sigourney Weaver received her second (and to date last) Best Actress nomination for playing Dian Fossey, a murdered scientist who dedicated her life to saving gorillas from extinction. Not only did Siggy join the double nominees club in 1988, but she also became the first actress to lose two Oscars at one show. It must have been very disappointing for poor Siggy but I suppose the worst thing for her must have been the people expressing how sorry they were. Her loss can be understood extremely easily: she split votes with herself since neither category had a very strong front-runner. As a result, voters had no idea where to vote for her and oops... I suppose in the end she was third in Best Actress and second in Best Supporting Actress (why the hell couldn't they give her that one at least, my pick is Joan but I definitely would have voted for Siggy at the time; oh is Joan really my pick? :D). 

Gorillas in the Mist is a nice movie, even though sometimes it just drags along. It is an exhausting piece despite the fact that it's not a real challenge for your intelligence or any of your senses. It's properly written, directed and acting, plus, I really have to underline the fact Maurice Jarre's score that's probably the best thing about the whole movie. Although I'm not sure if I would have voted for it (hello Dangerous Liaisons), it created a wonderful atmosphere to the movie. I was pretty much amazed by it. And as a big fan of The Good Wife, I found it so funny that Siggy went for the same guy that Christine Baranski does there (Bryan Brown). :-)

I have sentimental and cool reasons to love Sigourney Weaver. OK, the sentimental one is that she was my second celeb childhood crush after Julianna Margulies (again, connections with The Good Wife, weird) and for that reason, she always remains special to me. The cool reason came four or five years later, when I turned into an Alien fanatic (OK, now I can admit that not even dearest Jane had a prayer of getting my vote in 1986) and I could just watch anything she's in. Moreover, it doesn't hurt, either, that I was also a Ghostbusters fanatic for a couple of years. And as it was pointed out to me earlier how much she looked like Jane Fonda, that pretty much sealed the deal for me. All in all, I can't really go wrong with a Sigourney Weaver movie and as a result, I'm more lenient and less objective about her than I should probably be.

Despite all these things, I have to say right here and right now that I couldn't really warm up to her performance as Dian Fossey. I'm perfectly aware that her most dedicated fans consider this to be her masterpiece (for me that's easily Aliens), I'm not much of a fan and I consider this to be her least impressive nominated work (so sorry Derek :-( ). That being said, it doesn't mean that I don't like her in this movie because I do in many ways.

I suppose my sort of reluctant feelings are mostly down to the fact that I could never really smypathise with her character. Don't misunderstand me, I find Dian Fossey a brilliant woman who did so much for protecting gorillas and as a result, the diversity of species on our Earth, it's just that the story's portrait of her is rather lacking and pale.

Therefore, it was up to Sigourney to replace the missing parts. Naturally, she does the best she can and her dedication is truly admirable, I just never really warmed up to her performance like I usually do with her. I'm aware of how hard and how long Siggy worked with those gorillas plus she nailed the technical part of this character, in my opinion. That way, she was almost perfect, in my humble opinion.

And the scenes where we can see her communicating with the gorillas are just thrilling. Siggy perfectly showed how well Dian understood these animals and how attached she has become to them. She shows that gorillas were Dian's real family and she acted like a protective mother around them. It's an interesting process to witness.

The character of Dian goes through a huge development and it was up to Siggy to make it as believable and intriguing as possible. The movie tried to reveal a darker side of Dian, but I felt that it was sometimes too forgiving and easy on her. And that unfortunately applies to Siggy as well. She wants to show that Dian Fossey became a fanatic towards the end, but I never thought that she was willing to risk not being considered a hero. I think a more subtle and detailed approach to Dian's flaws would have helped a lot. Because this way, it could be considered a bigger meltdown, which was actually only a little bit over-the-top and I was really affected by it. And yet, with hindsight, it seems a little bit out of place, especially considering Siggy's previous approach, which was more subtle.

Another very interesting part of this performance was Siggy's scenes where Dian finds love on the side of the photographer played by Bryan Brown. The chemistry between the two actors is extremely strong and I was really impressed how tender they scenes became. And Siggy's acting is probably the most balanced in these moments.

I also enjoyed the interactions between Dian and her friend Sembagare, the only person who always understood her and stood right by her side. Their friendship was portrayed so wonderfully by both actors and it was a thrill to watch them being together on the screen, with Dian being the passionate, emotional one and Sembagare being the more reserved and cool-headed one of the two.

As I stated earlier, I want to be lenient with Siggy here. And there are more reasons than the fact that I love her in general: there's really a great deal to love and admire about this performance, I just don't think I can so easily ignore the things that bothered me. I have the exact same reaction that I had to Greer Garson in Blossoms in the Dust. I love her as an actress, I enjoyed her work so why can't I settle for that?

So I can conclude that just like Sally Field in Places in the Heart, I liked and admired Sigourney Weaver in Gorillas in the Mist. Although I saw the dedication and her commitment to her character, somehow she never really won me over completely, which is extremely unusual for me with a performance by Siggy. She shows the passion and the development of her character wonderfully, she doesn't go too much over the top, except for some scenes.

What do you think? (The rating seems low, I know, but I have to be less generous with my Meryls, earlier this would have been an easy 4). 

Melanie Griffith in Working Girl

Melanie Griffith got her only Oscar nomination to date for playing Tess McGill, a secretary who's determined to make it in the business world in a very unorthodox way in Mike Nichols' Best Picture nominated movie, Working Girl. Griffith was considered a front-runner for the prize, though I don't believe that she ever was a serious threat for the win, especially considering her lightweight role and movie. I guess Sigourney might have gotten ahead of her (along with Jodie and Great Glenn), but I really don't know. Her family's Hollywood connections might have helped a bit.

I'm astonished to say this, but I actually loved Working Girl for the second time. I was especially stunned, considering the fact that I didn't use to be a big fan of it. However, now I see what it is: a lovely, extremely entertaining product of pop culture. I'm not sure if it really deserved Best Picture and Director, but I'm just glad it received those nods. Also, I'm extremely disappointed that Siggy lost the Oscar: it was such a great opportunity to reward her. And I'm saying this despite one fact: that my actual vote in Supporting Actress would go to Working Girl, but to a different actress (though I go back and forth between her and Siggy and I love Michelle as well). Yep, I'm on the really uncrowded and unpopular Joan Cusack bandwagon right now: my goodness, that woman just rocks in her tiny part and overshadows the rest of her cast in a blink. I'd love to go on and on how much I loved her but I constantly remind myself that this review should be about Melanie, not Joan. :-) If you're interested, I'll tell you why as soon as I get back. 

Whatever happened to Melanie Griffith? I was just going to say it's time to go to television, Melanie, I can see that she already has a pilot coming up. Let's just hope that it brings her back to conversation since I'm really interested how she's working as a middle-aged actress. I guess an Emmy and another Golden Globe could give some boost to her career. Although I cannot say many other movies of hers beside Working Girl, I'm really rooting for her career. 

Melanie's nomination for Working Girl is one of the most unpopular and hated nominations ever given out. Many fail to see how she was nominated over the likes of Jamie Lee Curtis, Susan Sarandon or Michelle Pfeiffer (for Married to the Mob). True, but is this the reason why people dislike her so actively here? Partly, in my opinion. Personally, I can clearly see why I used to hate her here: when I watched her movie on tv years and years ago, I got used to her dubbed voice, where the actress sounded like a purr of a cat. And I loved that voice, of course. Compared to that, Melanie sounded like a tortured, not a pampered cat. However, this time I knew what to expect and I wasn't annoyed by her at all. In fact, nowadays I prefer this voice to this character, it just fits her more. Tess should be clumsy and unlucky, why should she have an awesome voice?

That being said, I don't think the Hungarian dubbing came to picture to many others who hate Melanie here. I suppose this is a mystery I'm never going to solve. Let me just say: I absolutely love Melanie's Tess McGill. From the first moment to the last, I liked this woman, cared about her, rooted for her. You know, I just wanted what Tess wanted: I wanted her to be succesful. And I refuse to feel guilt about this opinion of mine. In fact, I kind of feel like I'm a member of a very cool and elite club who really get this performance.

I suppose my whole attitude towards Melanie is identical with my feelings for her movie. I don't think it's a masterpiece of any kind, it just relaxes me and makes me feel good, even for that short period of time I'm watching her. I think you just have to know exactly what to expect from her and you can't be disappointed. Don't expect a very emotional, layered portrayal of a woman who's struggling in the business world. There's no real suffering going on there and Melanie doesn't try to dig really deep into her character. While there are some similarities between the two ladies, her transformation is quite far from what we can see from Julie Walters in Educating Rita. Working Girl's and Melanie's main goal was entertaining and no matter what people can talk into this film, it's nothing more than great fun. Neither is Melanie's performance.

Still, I liked the development in Tess' character. As I said, it's not a significant transformation, but I was still very much impressed by the fact that Melanie showed that Tess starts to resemble the likes of Siggy Weaver's character, while also remaining a simple girl from Staten Island as she can never really change. Although Joan Cusack steals the scene where this is stated, Melanie's pretty good on her own right.

She might be weak at delivering some of the lines or doesn't make them as strong as they could have been, but being clumsy might have just fit this character quite well. In fact, being a bit weak made this character even more realistic and brought her even closer to the audience. This way, even the occasional mistakes turn into something fun.

And no, you can't really ignore the fact how much the audience gets close to this woman, simply because she's so cute. That topless hoovering scene is so lovely despite lasting for like 3 seconds. These kinds of ordinary moments make this performance so special to me. It gives joy to an ordinary person because they can think 'Wow, it's like watching myself.' Some might look down on that, but sometimes you just have to loose yourself while watching a movie and leave your prejudices behind, very much like in the case of Julie Andrews in Mary Poppins. Although I wouldn't really put Melanie on the same level, every once in a while, I had the same feeling (minus the bitterness).

I don't care if it's fashionable or not, I love Melanie Griffith in Working Girl. I sympathized with her and felt for her character throughout the movie, no matter if she was hoovering topless or changing her look or interacting with her men. I laughed with her, got sad with her and I just always wanted her to get to the top. I loved Melanie's clear, almost naive emotions, her optimism, her glowing, funny, joyous personality. A thrill for the dreamers and the naives who think they can get that office at the top. If you're willing to leave your cynicism behind, you'll love her. Pure feel-good fun.

What do you think? :) Surprised, huh? :-) 

Jodie Foster in The Accused

Jodie Foster received her second Oscar nomination and first Oscar for playing Sarah Tobias, a rape victim in  the typical 80s movie, The Accused. After the nominations were announced, the Best Actress race seemed to be a tough one, which was among three actresses: Great Glenn, Melanie and Jodie. We have already speculated about why Jodie won and there are many possible explanations, I suppose it was mostly down to the fact that she was a previously Oscar nominated former child star who turned out to be a great actress as an adult as well, plus, that she was playing a very showy, baity part. However, I('d like to) think that her win was seriously threatened by Great Glenn.

The Accused as a movie is so... eighties. My goodness, the music, the story, Kelly McGillis, it's just simply too eighties to be ignored. I guess it would have made an Emmy-winning tv movie in 1993, but as a feature film it's quite shallow, poorly directed and one-dimensional. I suppose it was effective at the time, but nowadays it just seems too dated and corny. It really doesn't tell much about the real horror of rape, it really doesn't emphasise the fact that Jodie's character is a victim (in the right way). All in all, the movie refuses to give up the #1 purpuse of entertaining the audience and that's why we get all those cheesy monologues from McGillis etc.  

However, you can always hope that Jodie Foster, being one of the greatest, most intelligent actresses, gives some life even to a rather shallow plot. As a child actress, Jodie impressed people with her fierce, intelligent, radiant personality and she succesfully saved that to her later roles. Although I'm kind of sad that she seems to be cast in the same part over and over again nowadays, we just cannot deny her versatility and greatness. Obviously, when she was cast as Sarah Tobias, Kelly McGillis was the greater star and yet in the end, Jodie proved that she's the more enduring presence on the screen. 

Sarah Tobias seems to be a typical white trash woman who would have been played by Melissa Leo if she had been more famous back then. Such a part requires something that I really-really dislike: scenery chewing. Thankfully, one of the most subtle actresses, Jodie Foster was there to do that in the least obvious way, but a fact is a fact and scenery chewing remains scenery chewing. Jodie, a favorite of mine, was there to do one of my least favorite things in acting and therefore not having a great chance of winning me over. 

She succeeded partly, though. Although her character doesn't have much of a development, Jodie seems to realise that and instead she tries to show us what's going on in Sarah's head and as a result, she created a (sort of) intimate portrait of a woman who's going through a very traumatic event. Kelly McGillis gets the huge courtroom speeches, but it's Jodie who gets the tears and the more emotional storyline. The audience sympathises with Jodie despite the fact that her character is so trashy. 

Moreover, Jodie's always magnetic presence constantly draws the attention of the viewer and despite the lack of big screentime, she's able to leave a strong impression. I must say, though, she didn't have to do much since the movie constantly provided her with the opportunities to shine, she just had to live with all of them. And for an actress of her caliber, it wasn't the most difficult task. This might be very unpopular thing to say, but I would even dare to say that this was an easy role for Jodie. 

The first time you see this movie, you don't really notice this since you are captivated by the emotions as she's indeed effective. However, at a second viewing, you can be more objective because you know what to expect and the shock on you is not going to be that strong. Interestingly, no big flaws come to surface once you see her again. It's just that you're not that drawn by her and you can see that this character is not much of a deal (which doesn't mean you're not sympathising with her, it's just that you cannot get so passionate about the story).

Also, it's quite fun to see Jodie's interactions with Kelly McGillis. Their chemistry is excellent and I loved how the two of them showed the alliance of two worlds, two lifestyles. Although Jodie acts circles around McGillis, it somehow doesn't ruin balance between the two characters. I especially loved the scene between them where Jodie reads McGillis' horoscope. There's a kind of a tenderness and intimacy to that scene, which makes it particularly impressive. I always felt that the relationship between them is the strongest and most believable part of the movie. I loved how the actresses gradually broke down the barriers between the characters and got closer to each other.

However, the highlight of Jodie Foster's performance is her character's testimony at the courtroom. It was one of the rare deep moments of the film and I remained captivated by Jodie's energy and the emotions she portrayed. For me, her words were much more harrowing than the actual scene of the rape, because it (even if for a short period of time) really showed the disturbing consequences of rape on a person's soul. I was most blown away by one sentence that she says after being almost tortured by a lawyer and she simply replies: 'Yes, that's fair.' It's quite probably my favorite Jodie Foster moment ever as it sums up why she's so great as an actress: she has wonderful emotional intelligence.

All in all, Jodie Foster gives a very good and intense performance as Sarah Tobias. Although she's much less effective the second time around, her strength is occasionally captivating and she leaves a lasting impression in the end. Jodie minimises the scenery chewing and her acting is never too much in your face. And her courtroom scene is one of the best acted scenes of Jodie's career. Memorable, strong work. 

What do you think? The next review comes on Thursday at the same time. I decided to give you more time to comment and I don't want to fall behind them, either while I'm away. 

Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons

Great Glenn received her fifth unsuccessful Oscar nomination for playing Marquise de Merteuil, a bored and vicious aristocrat in the adaptation of Choderlos de Laclos's novel, Dangerous Liaisons. After you fail to win the Oscar for a smash hit, which becomes a classic in a second and you get your fifth nomination, you can expect some goodwill from the Academy and yet Great Glenn, the greatest of them all, has been really unlucky at the Academy Awards. I'm 100% sure that if the precursor awards had been on her side, she would have won, hands down (it's always those damn precursor awards that prevent her from winning the Oscar, I tell you). I suppose she was second even this way and was actually really threatening Jodie Foster's win. Since then, Jodie has won Oscars, Great Glenn zero. Discuss. :)

Dangerous Liaisons is simply one of the best movies ever made, simple as that. I don't like to often use this word, but this movie is just perfect. Not only did it deserve to win for all its nominations, it also should have earned John Malkovich an Oscar for the best male performance of 1988 (by far). Also, the fact that the Oscar field that year was so damn weak makes Dangerous Liaison's case even more puzzling. And Michelle... my goodness, is that woman amazing and very underrated here! Honestly both hers and Malkovich's performances left me breathless on their own right and they cannot even contend for being my favorite performance in this film (OK, we all knew awho it would be). 

I don't even start to talk about how and why I love Great Glenn. I don't give a fuck if it's a popular thing to do, I absolutely adore her, and yes, I think SHE is the greatest living actress who can do no wrong and who's probably one of the most underrated performers. There isn't a performance of hers that doesn't blow my socks off. No matter if it's Alex Forrest or Patty Hewes, Great Glenn's constant, dazzling greatness and magnetic personality shines through the scene. Each and every movement of hers suggest intelligence, confidence and natural greatness. I suppose why I love her to such an extent is down to the fact that her typical stage energy adds something unusual and infinitely amazing to her performances.

And Marquise de Merteuil is the crowning achievement of Great Glenn's whole brilliant career. Although I expected to adore her here and find her amazing (I had already seen the movie, like, six times), I wasn't prepared to be this blown away. It actually took me some time to finally really get this performance and what this whole character is all about. Now all the negative comments I've read about her have become clear. The Marquise is manipulative. True. Playing manipulative is easy. Maybe. Was this part easy? Hell no. Hell no. In the Marquise, Great Glenn created a fascinating, amazing and endlessly intriguing character, with much more under the surface than one would initially expect and Great Glenn reveals all the layers of the Marquise in the most fascinating and mysterious way one can imagine.

It's also amazing to me how Great Glenn added a touch of delicate humor to her performance. Bitchiness is always very delicious if done properly, and boy does Great Glenn nail it: her acidic dialogues are delivered as sharply by her as a razor blade. Great Glenn doesn't miss one single opportunity to kick ass and entertain the viewer. She's vivid, enjoyable, fascinating and utterly irresistable. Her work's just like great chocolate: smooth, delicious and in the end, it's nothing but sheer guilty pleasure. So far I would say that this part was very easy, especially for an actress of Great Glenn's stature.

However, what constantly fascinates me about this performance is Great Glenn's wonderful ability to portray the decline of not only the Marquise, but also a whole society and an era. At one point,  Great Glenn delivers a  very sinister and disturbing line: the century is coming to its end very soon. She fills this simple, almost meaningless sentence with so many meanings, making it probably the very essence of her movie. It seems like the Marquise and the Vicomte are trying to enjoy their brief time left in this world. Their life (on the outside) is limited by the rules of society and the daily routines, just like it's shown at the beginning of the movie. It's just like watching actors prepare for their performances. These bored aristocrats do nothing but constantly putting on shows for each other. 

Also, Great Glenn brilliantly uses her face to portray the viciousness of the Marquise. One blink can add multiple layers to a simple sentence and you just keep marvelling at how strong of an effect she can have on you with one look (no pun intended; or yes... maybe). She tells everything with her strange, assymetric eyes, her mouth and her powdered face. This makes the screen almost explode and also makes her a magnetic, luminous presence. No matter how vicious and evil she is, you just keep pulling for the Marquise. 

However, the only vulnerable side of the Marquise is her desire for Valmont. She says "It's the only time I've been controlled by my desire". It's no surprise that the chemistry between Great Glenn and Malkovich is just brilliant. They are both trying to control one another and it seems as if the two of them are in fact competing with each other. They are allies, friends, lovers, adversaries, even enemies. They can only be hurt by each other and yet both actors show how much these people depend on each other. Great Glenn shows it wonderfully that the Marquise is actually jealous and even a bit broken about the special love the Vicomte feels for Madame de Tourvel. You can see her sorrow when she leans against the wall, breathing. It's one of those rare moments when Great Glenn reveals the insecurities of the Marquise. 

Another proof is the long monologue where the Marquise reveals how she "invented" herself. Not only is it the highlight and the best scene of the Great Glenn in this particular movie, but it's also up there with one of her best acted moments of her whole career. Each and every word of hers made me feel like I was hit by a sightseeing bus. Great Glenn's acting seems so subtle, cold or even calculating and yet for me, it only proves how passionate she is in her acting. Although her tools are subtle and she's quite technical, there's something astonishingly real and very emotional about this part, very much like  in the case of Jane Fonda in Klute. Both of them show women deformed by society's expectation and both actresses put on seemingly calculated and atrificial performances in order to show how these women are constantly putting on performances.

Also, I found it really astonishing how we were able to look inside the head of the Marquise while Great Glenn was able to maintain the mysterious aura of the character. We understand the hows of this woman, but Great Glenn only gives us hints about why she acts this way (again, very much like Jane in Klute). And both of them are able to communicate the moral of story through their character, without being obvious or predictable. Both ladies are just showing how their respective societies' downfall affects these two women,  who live under very different circumstances.

The huge breakdown of the Marquise towards the end after the death of we-all-know-who seems extremely odd and out of place in the movie and yet considering the things mentioned above, it seems perfectly reasonable. The calculated surface disappears and all that remains is an overwhelming amount of emotions. I always thought the fact that Great Glenn's trying to rip off her own clothes was a symbol of trying to leave the rules of society behind her.

And yes I might have to withdraw my earlier statement. The conclusion of Great Glenn's performance is just pure perfection and it's just as brilliant as her big monologue (Great Glenn has always thought that this ending was one of the most difficult scenes for her). But boy, was she able to pull it off! She doesn't say a single word and yet she was able to affect you only by playing with her face. We can see a total meltdown, a  truly disturbing danse macabre: eventually, the society that created the Marquise destroys her as well and this downfall becomes incredibly terrifying thanks to Great Glenn. The directing was 100% behind her, but in the end, it was all up to Great Glenn if the movie turns out to be a masterpiece or just a great effort, because she could have screwed its effect up by one false movement in those final moments. However, she was able to balance the emotions incredibly and eventually created not only a fabulous character, but also made the whole movie what it is: a real masterpiece.

So in the end, amazing or fantastic or career-best don't even begin to describe how brilliant Great Glenn is as Marquise de Merteuil. Each and every movement of hers is so great that I still keep marvelling at it. Naturally, the Academy refused to acknowledge this earth-shattering performance with an Oscar win and yet that tells something about the Academy itself instead of Great Glenn who's simply electrifying. A true masterclass in acting, which makes me think if I should call Great Glenn Brilliant Glenn or Greatest Glenn from now on. Again, the rating is just wasted.

  

What do you think? I already painted a red spot on my shirt. 

The Next Year

1988

So the nominees were:

• Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons
• Jodie Foster in The Accused
• Melanie Griffith in Working Girl
• Meryl Streep in A Cry in the Dark
• Sigourney Weaver in Gorillas in the Mist

Continuing a Streepathon celebrating Meryl's third, a year with three previous winners of mine and two ladies I haven't yet reviewed. Great Glenn seems to be the odds-on favorite to win here but let's see if I'll jump on the Meryl bandwagon like many of my fellow bloggers or pick someone else. :)

What do you think? Who's your pick? What's your prediction for my ranking? :)

103. Child's Play

103. (08 Apr) Child's Play (1988, Tom Holland) 54

Rain Man

Rain Man, 1988
Directed by Barry Levinson
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 4
Up Against: The Accidental Tourist, Dangerous Liasons, Mississippi Burning, Working Girl

Synopsis: Charlie Babbit is living in LA, working as a down-and-out automobile salesman. When Charlie hears word that his father has died, he barely feels anything. He and his father have had an estranged relationship since Charlie was sixteen years old, when he borrowed his fathers 1948 Buick convertible without permission, with his friends, got pulled over for 'stealing a car', and his father left him in jail for 2 days while he friends all made bail. Charlie goes to his father's funeral, and then learns that his father's money ($3 million) is going into a trust, and Charlie has only been left the 1948 Buick, and his father's prized rose bushes. While in searches of finding out who the $3 million has gone to, he discovers he has an older brother. His name is Raymond, he's an autistic man living at a home for special needs patients, and he has inherited the $3 million. Charlie is angry, he never knew about Raymond, and that Ray has no need for this money. He decides to "take" his brother from his home, and tries to bargain him for the money, all while traveling cross-country with his autistic brother, hardly knowing how to deal with him.

When I started up this project, my mum was really excited that I would be watching this movie. My dad too, and several other people I knew told me this was an amazing movie. So naturally, I was excited to watch it. I was even more excited after watching Kramer vs Kramer, and seeing Dustin Hoffman as a great actor.

Personally, I found the plot a little slow. Most of the movie was spent in Charlie and Ray traveling across country, and Charlie getting annoyed and yelling at Ray, and Ray just being, well, Ray, and living in his own little world. There was a small plot about Charlie's car company, how it's about to go under, and how he'll owe people a lot of money, and he's broke. There's the little plot about the $3 million, and trying to gain custody of his brother so he can have the money. Oh, and all the funny things they do on their way to LA, like Charlie finding out Ray has a special talent with numbers. They go to Vegas and Ray counts cards so that Charlie can pay back his clients, with which their deals have fallen through. But this movie is really about Charlie and Ray. Charlie trying to come to terms on how to deal with Ray, about how Ray isn't "in there somewhere", this is just how he is. And just dealing with the fact that he had a brother he never knew about.

But above all, this was really a showcase for Dustin Hoffman. Dustin Hoffman playing Ray, the autistic man, who recites "Who's On First?" when nervous, watches Jeopardy at 5 everyday, has lights out at 11, and doesn't like to fly on planes because they crash, likes clothes from K-Mart, and memorizes everything he reads. While Dustin Hoffman was originally cast as Charlie, he changed his mind after encountering Leslie Lemke, who was blind, mentally handicapped, and had cerebal palsy but who could play full piano concertos by ear. He spent a year working with autistic people and their families to try and understand them better, and how they think, and deal with relationships. And this really paid off. Dustin Hoffman was so utterly convincing that I couldn't believe he was that father I had seen in Kramer vs Kramer, that he wasn't autistic. Even though Hoffman reportedly said that this was his "worst work" while filming, he won his second Oscar. And rightly so. His performance was absolutely incredible. While autism was known to some people in the 80's, Hoffman really give a face to what autism was, and really changed people's perspectives on it.

And then there's Tom Cruise. Many people seem to not mention how really good he was too. He and Hoffman had such great chemistry, and you really believed they were somehow brothers. Charlie is erratic and abrasive, and he simply cannot understand Ray at first, thinking his needs and antics are an act. But he slowly comes to terms with who Ray is, and what Ray is to him. And he plays this so well. He's really able to hold his own much of the time, and does a great job.

Overall, this movie was a wonderful treat. The acting was superb, even if the story was a tad weak and didn't really wrap everything up in the end. Hoffman gave one of the best performances I've seen thus far. This film also features Hans Zimmers first Hollywood score, and got Dustin Hoffman his second Best Actor award, as well with winning, Picture, Director and Screenplay. Overall, a good movie.

8/10

046. Hobgoblins

046. (07 Feb) /Hobgoblins/ (1988, Rick Sloane) 3



I often point to Hobgoblins as my favorite MST3K episode. It holds up so well, sort of embodying just what a simultaneously punishing and delightful experience the show can be.

Looking Back: Working Girl

(dir. Mike Nichols, 1988)

I've spent years trying to locate this movie and watch it.  No, I admit that it's not the hardest movie to find, but I could just never get a hold of it on Netflix or the library or whatever.  And finally it appeared on Instant Queue and my long wait was finally over (merely by saying "Honey, Harrison Ford is in it," I convinced my fiancée to sit down and watch it with me).

It's the late 1980s and hotheaded-yet-business-savvy Tess McGill (Melanie Griffith) is struggling to be more than just a peace of meat in the fast-paced world of New York business.  After calling her boss (a thin Oliver Platt) a pimp, she's relocated to the office of shrewd, shoulder-pad wearing Katharine Parker (played brilliantly by Sigourney Weaver).  Weaver at first seems to be a kind boss, and in fact if I didn't know she was supposed to turn out evil, that slow section of the film would have been devoid of tension.  But it was just waiting for Weaver to do something bad or act like a witch, which she finally does after being betrayed by McGill.  When Katharine breaks her leg skiing, our secretary cum Wall Street virtuoso takes over her office and begins to set in motion a brilliant business acquisition (originally her idea) which Katharine had tried to deflate and secretly steal.  Oh, and along the way she falls in love with Jack Trainer, a sleepwalking Harrison Ford.

You always hear Working Girl references as being very, very 80s in both fashion and design.  After watching the whole thing, I'm less shocked and more flabbergasted that it was so beloved at the 1988 Academy Awards. I hardly find anything to dislike about a film that's nominated for some kind of Oscar; I may not love every film nominated, but I can at least appreciate why some people like it, but about this film, I have nothing good to say.

Well, Weaver was good.  But the buck stops there. Oh, and the song "Let the River Run" by Carly Simon.  There was one particularly good scene at the beginning of the film, where Griffith is set up with a trashy businessman perfectly played by an ageless Kevin Spacey.

"You SLUT!"

How this was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and three acting races is a little beyond me. Griffith seemed like she was lost without a paddle the entire time, and not just because she was a woman in a man's world but because she was put in the precarious potion of having to act.  Maybe it was partially due to Kevin Wade's comically atrocious dialog, but Griffith's emotional range never rose above mildly irked.  Whenever something huge or stressful would happen in the character's life, all Griffith could muster was a banal "Okay" or "Snake" before hanging up the phone or calmly turning around.  I rarely say this, but it really felt as though she was merely...saying lines the whole time, and trying to remember them halfway through saying them.

Joan Cusack and Harrison Ford were both criminally underused and hardly present.  Ford's allotted one good scene, and after that the rest of his character and thereby his performance are nothing short of predictable. Cusack could have had a juicy part, but really is only able to shine in one scene that takes place about halfway into the film; after that, she basically disappears and Griffith's full lingerie set becomes her new sidekick.

The most painful part for me, though, was that no one changed in the film.  No character has an arch, there's very little evolution.  At the beginning, McGill was tough-headed and business-minded, and at the end she still is, but the only difference is people's perception of her.  Ford's character certainly doesn't change, since he's never painted as anything close to the other Wall Street snakes in the film, so when he has a heart of gold at the end there's no big reveal there (he doesn't even sleep with Griffith the night the drunkenly meet and she sleeps over).  Cusack's Cyn isn't carefully imagined enough by the screenwriter to even have a change, so the only thing that evolves on her is the amount of eyeliner and hairspray she uses.  Not even Weaver could manage an arch; witch at the beginning and witch at the end.  This, I think, is why I couldn't care about any character...they were just all so flat and boring.  This movie was about a working girl, but it's a movie that needs a lot of work to get through.  The costumes are the highlights.  GRADE: D-


.

The Vanishing (Spoorloos) 1988 ***

(This article is from guest contributor Sarkoffagus and first appeared at http://classic-film-tv.blogspot.com/.  The rating in the title is my own.)

A Dutch man, Rex (Gene Bervoets), and his girlfriend, Saskia (Johanna ter Steege), are on holiday in France. They stop at a gas station for a rest and to refuel, and sitting in his car is a man (Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu) who affixes his arm with an artificial cast and sling. When Saskia enters the station for drinks before the couple hits the road again, she does not return. Rex searches the area and questions the gas station manager and employees, but there is no trace of the woman. Three years later, Rex is consumed by his search for Saskia. Though he has a girlfriend, Lieneke (Gwen Eckhaus), her companionship cannot outweigh his obsession. Rex has received postcards from someone claiming to know what has happened to Saskia, but when he waits at a specified meeting place, there is no one. When Rex finally makes an appearance on television to tell the story of Saskia’s disappearance, Raymond, the man from the gas station years ago, approaches him, saying that he can tell Rex of his girlfriend’s fate.

George Sluizer’s 1988 film The Vanishing (aka Spoorloos, the original Dutch title) is an elegantly complex feature, most notably for an early introduction to and subsequent spotlighting of the villain. Following Saskia’s vanishing, the film’s perspective switches to Raymond, a family man and school teacher, as his plan slowly materializes. He is meticulous, each of his acts another step towards his objective. What makes Raymond such an appalling character is the fact that he is thorough, mapping out every aspect and even practicing (at one point involving his daughter in a scenario, unbeknownst to her). Another frightening point is the origin of specific ideas, sometimes coming from someone else, such as his family. Raymond is, as he himself says, a sociopath, cold and detached, and his very nature is chilling. When his wife expresses concern that he may have a mistress, Raymond alleviates her worries not with charm but in a direct, businesslike manner.

Much of the film plays like curtains being drawn back, not for a shocking revelation, but rather to unveil the inevitable horror. Sluizer offers clues throughout the course of the film, not truly hiding anything. The ending may not be the preferred destination, but it is the only way. This gives deeper meaning to an early scene, when Rex and Saskia run out of gas in the middle of a dark tunnel. After retrieving gasoline, Rex drives the car out of the tunnel, visualized from his point of view. The meager light at the tunnel’s exit gradually increases, revealing to the audience what it can already see -- and standing in the light is Saskia, who is waiting at the end.

The Vanishing was based on the novella, The Golden Egg, by Tim Krabbé, who wrote the screenplay adaptation with Sluizer. The story’s title is referenced in the film by a description of Saskia’s dream, in which she is trapped inside a golden egg, a dream that Rex also experiences during his desperate search. Sluizer, who also produced, and producer Anne Lordon won a Golden Calf for Best Feature Film at the Netherlands Film Festival. The film was the Dutch submission for the Academy Awards’ Best Foreign Language Film category but was ineligible since a great deal of spoken dialogue was in French. Actress ter Steege, in her film debut, won an European Film Award for Best Supporting Actress (the very first year that the European Film Academy held a ceremony).
Actor Jeroen Krabbé is author Tim Krabbé’s brother. The actor has appeared in a number of films, perhaps most famously in The Living Daylights (1987) and The Fugitive (1993). He also co-starred with ter Steege in Immortal Beloved (1994).

Sluizer directed a Hollywood remake of The Vanishing in 1993, starring Keifer Sutherland, Jeff Bridges, and Nancy Travis. The narrative structure is only slightly altered, with a significant change being additional screen time for the U.S. version of Lieneke (played by Travis). The most drastic revision, however, was the ending, which was compromised to allow for a more upbeat conclusion. The movie was a commercial and critical failure.