Posted June 25, 2024
Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp, aka that book Die Hard is based on (Die Hard was based on a book? Well, yeah, most of the great movies in history are based on some kind of pre-existing source material...).
Joe Leland is a retired cop, divorced (and his ex-wife is deceased), who now works as a security consultant. He's travelling to Los Angeles to spend Christmas with his divorced daughter, Stephanie Gennaro, and her two kids. They're supposed to meet up at the Klaxxon Oil building where she works and where Stephanie has just helped close a massive deal to build a bridge in Chile. But some terrorists lead by a German, Anton "Little Tony/Tony the Red" Gruber, invade the company Christmas Party and take everyone hostage. When Joe realizes what's happening (while washing his feet in an office), he grabs his gun and pads off in his bare feet to the stairwell, where he tries to figure out what to do next.
In comparing the book to the movie, one of the most interesting things isn't that they're different (although they are), but how alike they are, at least in terms of plotting. There are several sequences that one could feel safe assuming were invented for the movie because of how over the top they are, but they're right there in the original novel; e.g., Joe having to evade the bad guys by lowering himself into the building's air shaft with the strap of a gun, or having to rappel off the roof of the building with a fire hose to escape exploding helicopters. There are still some differences - Joe never actually falls in the shaft and has to miraculously grab a vent on the way down. He manages to find purchase on a vent in the dark and carefully squishes himself inside, but he does it feet-first and he doesn't have a lighter to orient himself, so it's less exciting but more suspenseful and claustrophobic than the movie version.
To the major differences, the book is entirely from Joe's perspective, so you never really get to know the villains and supporting characters like you do in the film. Because of the total focus on Joe, the book is often introspective. Early on, Joe is just thinking his way through situations like a cop and war hero would, but as it goes on and he takes more and more punishment (he probably takes even more than Bruce Willis does), his mind wanders toward the disappointments of his life. This book is a sequel to Thorp's 1960s book The Detective, which got made into a Frank Sinatra movie. That book is a pretty downbeat hard-boiled cop story (and absolutely huge for such a novel), so Joe is already coming from a bad place, and we learn that he feels regret about how his marriage ended and how he became estranged from his daughter. Because he's an older man, he tends to think of the terrorists as "kids" (Gruber is only 30), which weighs on his mind, and several of the terrorists are women he ends up shooting, which weighs on him further. By the time the book is over, he understandably is angry and confused about what he even accomplished.
I would say the book version of Gruber is smarter than Alan Rickman's character. Little Tony correctly figures out several of Joe's moves ahead of time, and a lot of the action happens because Joe wanders into traps despite himself. Unlike the film version, the terrorists actually are terrorists - there's no big twist on their motives - but Gruber is still the one who starts all the shit when he blasts the head executive and then kills Ellis later on. Joe seems quite correct when he observes that Gruber and the other terrorists just like to murder and destroy stuff despite their high-minded political lecturing.
The tones are just different. Even the titles: Die Hard has a defiant, life-affirming quality while Nothing Lasts Forever feels downbeat. The filmmakers wanted to make a fun action movie with a lot of humor and a happy ending. The book...doesn't have a happy ending and there are couple of developments in the last couple of chapters that are kind of jaw-dropping, especially the bit with Sgt. Powell vs. Karl.
I would say the movie is better than the book, but that's not a slight on the book. It's a Psycho situation. Robert Bloch was a great writer and Psycho is one of several good books he wrote. Hitchcock's Psycho is one of the best suspense movies ever made in a genre that is often viewed as trashy. Similar deal here. Nothing Lasts Forever is a very good book, but there are many very good books that are released every year. Die Hard is one of the best action movies ever made, and even in its time it wasn't often that we got action movies on its level, and things are a lot worse now (check out those last couple of "Die Hard" sequels that were made...). The movie just has a bigger footprint in its medium, but I would certainly recommend the book.
Joe Leland is a retired cop, divorced (and his ex-wife is deceased), who now works as a security consultant. He's travelling to Los Angeles to spend Christmas with his divorced daughter, Stephanie Gennaro, and her two kids. They're supposed to meet up at the Klaxxon Oil building where she works and where Stephanie has just helped close a massive deal to build a bridge in Chile. But some terrorists lead by a German, Anton "Little Tony/Tony the Red" Gruber, invade the company Christmas Party and take everyone hostage. When Joe realizes what's happening (while washing his feet in an office), he grabs his gun and pads off in his bare feet to the stairwell, where he tries to figure out what to do next.
In comparing the book to the movie, one of the most interesting things isn't that they're different (although they are), but how alike they are, at least in terms of plotting. There are several sequences that one could feel safe assuming were invented for the movie because of how over the top they are, but they're right there in the original novel; e.g., Joe having to evade the bad guys by lowering himself into the building's air shaft with the strap of a gun, or having to rappel off the roof of the building with a fire hose to escape exploding helicopters. There are still some differences - Joe never actually falls in the shaft and has to miraculously grab a vent on the way down. He manages to find purchase on a vent in the dark and carefully squishes himself inside, but he does it feet-first and he doesn't have a lighter to orient himself, so it's less exciting but more suspenseful and claustrophobic than the movie version.
To the major differences, the book is entirely from Joe's perspective, so you never really get to know the villains and supporting characters like you do in the film. Because of the total focus on Joe, the book is often introspective. Early on, Joe is just thinking his way through situations like a cop and war hero would, but as it goes on and he takes more and more punishment (he probably takes even more than Bruce Willis does), his mind wanders toward the disappointments of his life. This book is a sequel to Thorp's 1960s book The Detective, which got made into a Frank Sinatra movie. That book is a pretty downbeat hard-boiled cop story (and absolutely huge for such a novel), so Joe is already coming from a bad place, and we learn that he feels regret about how his marriage ended and how he became estranged from his daughter. Because he's an older man, he tends to think of the terrorists as "kids" (Gruber is only 30), which weighs on his mind, and several of the terrorists are women he ends up shooting, which weighs on him further. By the time the book is over, he understandably is angry and confused about what he even accomplished.
I would say the book version of Gruber is smarter than Alan Rickman's character. Little Tony correctly figures out several of Joe's moves ahead of time, and a lot of the action happens because Joe wanders into traps despite himself. Unlike the film version, the terrorists actually are terrorists - there's no big twist on their motives - but Gruber is still the one who starts all the shit when he blasts the head executive and then kills Ellis later on. Joe seems quite correct when he observes that Gruber and the other terrorists just like to murder and destroy stuff despite their high-minded political lecturing.
The tones are just different. Even the titles: Die Hard has a defiant, life-affirming quality while Nothing Lasts Forever feels downbeat. The filmmakers wanted to make a fun action movie with a lot of humor and a happy ending. The book...doesn't have a happy ending and there are couple of developments in the last couple of chapters that are kind of jaw-dropping, especially the bit with Sgt. Powell vs. Karl.
I would say the movie is better than the book, but that's not a slight on the book. It's a Psycho situation. Robert Bloch was a great writer and Psycho is one of several good books he wrote. Hitchcock's Psycho is one of the best suspense movies ever made in a genre that is often viewed as trashy. Similar deal here. Nothing Lasts Forever is a very good book, but there are many very good books that are released every year. Die Hard is one of the best action movies ever made, and even in its time it wasn't often that we got action movies on its level, and things are a lot worse now (check out those last couple of "Die Hard" sequels that were made...). The movie just has a bigger footprint in its medium, but I would certainly recommend the book.