A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD

As each Die Hard movie marches closer and closer to Fast and Furious territory, the question we have to ask ourselves is “Are we ok with John McClain becoming a big, dumb, American James Bond?”  There’s something about the tightly packaged, predictably trope-y action films that the James Bond series has always been and the Die Hard series is now becoming that just mentally prepares you to say ‘meh’.  The action scenes will dazzle you and the drama will sort of make you cringe and you’ll leave the theatre liking it exactly as much as everyone else.  Then in two years you’ll have completely forgotten it, just in time for a new one.

At this point, Bruce Willis is no longer a key component of Die Hard.  Every scene he’s in feels like he’s acting from a glass booth.  I would bet that he has very specific requirements about how many days he’s going to be on set and how many takes he’s willing to do per scene and that those numbers are both very close to ‘one’.  He’s now one of those actors that can be made great (Moonrise Kingdom) but can no longer do it on his own.  I just think that with everyone’s expectations for a Die Hard movie being where they are and Bruce Willis being as checked out as he is it wouldn’t make a big difference if someone else stepped in as the new John McClain.

In 1988 that would’ve sounded crazy, but someone other than George Lucas directing Star Wars VII would’ve seemed crazy back then too.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that A Good Day to Die Hard is perfectly designed to exactly meet your expectations.  The bad guy’s convoluted plot turns out to be a different, much less sensical plot.  John McClain tries to fix his family.  He says “Yippee ki-yay, motherfucker”.  It’s all there.  The only way it could fall short of your expectations is if you expected it to be a legitimately good film in its own right, which is impossible because that would mean you don’t exist.

Even for a paint-by-numbers plot, Die Hard 5 does manage to fall short.   Again, I’m trying to harp less on plot but it’s hard not to mention it in this case.  The story feels like it’s based off of something Bruce Willis screamed at the director while trying to demonstrate how little he wanted to be there.  A problem many action movies have is that the writers think of a bunch of cool scenes and then try to mash them together like the world’s worst game of seven minutes in heaven.  That’s not what happened here.  Something unfamiliar and frightening took place during the writing of this film – something that borders on Happy Madison levels of lazy.  I won’t go into detail because you will eventually see this and then we can all have a big laugh about much we agree on this.

Of the six or so action scenes, two are still well put-together and all are directed very proficiently.  It was actually kind of nice to see a big-budget action movie where all the pieces fit into the right place.  They were the blazing solos in an otherwise shitty metal song – still not that good, but just impressive enough to keep the whole thing from being semi-rhythmic banging.  The action set-pieces are one of the few things people still kind of anticipate enjoying in Die Hard, so in that sense…I guess this movie is a success?

Die Hard 5 is being panned by both critics and audiences, which is fine.  It’s not that good.  I’m just not sure who these people are that loved Die Hard 2-4 and didn’t see this coming.  If you’re a reasonable person, this is exactly the happy meal you’re expecting it to be.  Pull up to the window, get your food, pull into a nearby parking spot, hope nobody notices you while you wolf it down with the car still running, and then keep driving.  In a few years you won’t remember which Die Hard pun this one is and we can all talk about how we liked ‘the one where he went to Russia’ a little less. – DT