A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

n

nTitle: A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

n

nDirector: John Moore

n

nCast: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Mary Elizabeth Winstead

n

nReview:

n

nJohn McTiernan’s  DienHard (1987) was a smash hit during the 80’s because it gave us John McClane,nthe regular everyday Joe who takes matters into his own hands and “makes upnshit as he goes” in order to stop a group of terrorists that have taken a wholen building hostage,  on Christmas Eve no less. During that firstnfilm we meet a very vulnerable hero, a guy who suffers, who’s pain we feel, hendoesn’t come off as superman. He’s not indestructible. Willis’s performancenmakes us believe he’s in danger, he’s scared, he’s hurt, but he gives it hisnall till the end. Too bad this latest installment, A Good Day to Die Hard has de-evolvednthe series into a childish action fantasy where nothing feels real andneverything feels like a joke. This is Die Hard Today!

n

n

nOn this sequel, John McClane must travel to Russia in ordernto rescue his son (a CIA agent) who happens to be caught in the middle of anRussian political assassination plot. You see, a terrorist is trying to stealnsome uranium in order to sell it in the black market. It’s sad, but this isnexactly the same plot we saw only a few months ago in The Expendables 2 (2012),nso, as you can see, the lack of originality in Hollywood has grown tonembarrassing levels. And with that I close the synopsis for this new film, itnreally isn’t more complicated than that.  

n

n

nThe problem with me and this new John McClane is that youncan see that smirk in Bruce Willis’s face, he isn’t even trying to live thenrole, to Willis himself, John McClane is just a joke, he’s just going throughnthe motions. He doesn’t have that intensity he had in Die Hard (1987), but ofncourse, the same intensity can’t be expected, after all, this is John McClane atn57 years of age and of course, wear and tear is bound to show up. Watching Willisnplay John McClane entering his late 50’s is the equivalent of seeing HarrisonnFord playing Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). It just isn’tnIndy anymore. Indy seemed tired, static when compared to his golden days in thenTemple of Doom.  The same can be said ofnMcClane in A Good Day to Die Hard. It’s a more laid back John McClane, quieter,nnot as crazy. And so, we’ve entered into an era where aging action stars arentrying to milk their franchises for all their worth before completely fadingnout, which in my opinion is exactly what should happen with these Die Hardnmovies, let McClane go while he still has some dignity in him; or at the verynleast give him some more balls to the wall crazy attitude, because in mynopinion, on this one Bruce Willis was just winging it.

n

n

nThis doesn’t mean McClane doesn’t deliver his one linersnwith a vengeance and with as much speed as the bullets that whiz by, he just saysnthem with less emotion.  I’m guessing thenreason why they introduce his son –Jack McClane- whom we’ve never even heard of,nis because they want to pass the franchise over to him, so he takes over. Kindnof the same thing they were aiming for when they introduced Shia LaBeouf innIndiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystall Skull (2008), let Indy’s son takenover the franchise. Problem for me with introducing John McClane’s son is that theyndidn’t make his character remotely memorable, they should have taken thenopportunity to introduce to us a character that could maybe carry the franchiseninto future sequels, but Jack McClane simply fails to have any sort ofncharisma, which is something that film producers seem to be forgetting whennmaking these movies:  you’re supposed tongive us characters with some charisma, it’s the reason why we loved Willis innDie Hard in the first place, here was a likable guy, one of us. Not so with thisnnew Jack McClane guy; sadly, we are introduced to a generic action hero, sans anpersonality.

n

n

nNow in terms of action these films have evolved. Whenncompared to the first Die Hard, these new ones have decided to go intonunrealistic territory bordering on freaking fantasy. Remember the action innLive Free or Die Hard (2007)? This one goes the same route. At least in DienHard they aimed to make things believable within reason, yeah we were stillnwatching a movie, but come one, at least the first film aimed to make usnbelieve it! On this one, CGI John McClane takes over whenever Willis can’tnhandle the stunts, which is all the time . But I will say this; the destructionnwas ample and epic.  I enjoyed the filmsnchase sequence where McClane chases the bad guys on a jeep across the streetsnof Russia. Lots of destruction, lot’s of cars flying through the air, lots ofnexplosions. It’s all in good fun but isn’t it funny how McClane wants’ tonrescue his son yet in order to do so he drives his car over 50 civilian cars?nThis is what I find most ridiculous about the film! In order to rescue one guy,nMcClane destroys a couple million dollars worth of private property. I mean, henliterally drives his jeep over a bunch of cars stuck in a traffic jam (withndrivers inside of them) all while screaming “sorry!”  And this is supposed to be the good guy! It’snfunny because McClane is always talking about “killing some bad guys” throughoutnthe entire flick, yet he doesn’t act that heroic himself.  Even more hilarious is the fact that McClanenisn’t even five minutes in Russia and he’s already stealing cars and destroyingnwhole expressways. But what the thell,  in the name of total devastation in an actionnmovie, well, of course I was willing to let it slide, I was having fun.

n

n

nSo yeah, the movie is fast paced and entertaining, if onlynit had invested more time in giving us the John McClane we’ve known and loved fromnprevious films…I mean, how hard can it really be to give us that old Die Hardnmagic again? How hard can it be to write a script with memorable characters andna story with some weight to it? Instead we get John McClane making fun of hisnold age and all that, apparently it’s the thing to do when you turn into annaging action star, just as Arnold and Stallone. Sadly, though entertaining andnfilled with lot’s of vehicular destruction, this movie left me feeling likenthey should just let the franchise die with some honor. This new Die Hard is a shadow of it’s former glory. This isn’t JohnnMcClane, this is just a washed up version of him; I truly hope the series has diednhard.

n

nRating: 3 ½ out of 5

n

n