This is probably the saddest review I've ever had to write. There are only a few film series that I genuinely love. There will always be soft spots in my heart for the Lethal Weapon films, the original Star Wars, the Back to the Future trilogy, and The Evil Dead series. But, there is no set of films I love more than the Die Hard movies. The original Die Hard redefined the action genre. It humanized its action hero and pitted heroes against beautifully written villains. Without Die Hard we wouldn't have most of the classic action films that we love today. Under Siege is Die Hard on a ship. Air Force One is Die Hard on a plane. Speed is Die Hard on a bus. And the upcoming Olympus Has Fallen is Die Hard in the White House. There is no other action series than can say it has contributed so much to the future of movies. So, you can understand why I had higher expectations than usual for the fifth film in the franchise. And why my heart was shattered when I left the theater feeling betrayed.
What I've failed to understand is why no one seemed to give a shit about this movie. No one. The studio didn't give a shit who wrote it or who signed on to direct it. The writer didn't give a shit about the previous films. Bruce Willis didn't give a shit that he was in it. And no one will give a shit after it is over. In a time when reboots reign supreme, you'd think that in order to not disappoint avid fans, they'd put a little effort into the film. The Mission: Impossible movies weren't exactly films that most people considered amazing or ground-breaking. However, with each sequel they signed bigger stars, they attached competent directors, and each new director at the helm added their own reputable flair to the films. John Woo took over for Brian DePalma, J.J. Abrams took over for Woo, and Brad Bird took over for Abrams and now Mission: Impossible has staked its claim as being respectable films. The same goes for the James Bond films. For awhile, each film would be the same recycled action crap up until Daniel Craig took over. Then, they hired Academy Award winning writers, got some highly esteemed directors, and somehow in the last decade 007 has turned into a dignified franchise. So, why did no one give a shit about putting any of the effort into the newest Die Hard?
This newest entry into the franchise, and possibly the last entry, leads John McClane (Bruce Willis) to Russia to help his son Jack with whatever contrived, and monotonous mission he's failed to complete. Honestly, it was a clusterfuck of boring information that was more or less confusing than intelligent and pretty much led to more plot holes than solid movie paths. Now, here's the deal with the Die Hard films: there are certain rules one must adhere to when making a proper Die Hard film. One, remember that John McClane is human, not super-human. What's appealing about McClane is that he's the everyman cop. He's the guy who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the first film, we learn immediately that he's afraid of flying. He had to remove his shoes and rub his feet on the carpet in order to settle his nerves. Because of this, during the firefight with the German baddies, he's not wearing any shoes. His feet get cut to shit and he has to adapt to the situation whilst losing massive amounts of blood. By the end of the film, the man is hardly alive. The same could be said with the next two. A little bit of disbelief had to be suspended for the fourth film, but it was still relatively within the same context. Apparently, this trope has been tossed completely out the window. John McClane is now a robot incapable of feeling human pain. He'll get tossed around like a rag doll in a car, by a car, out a car, etc. and stand up as if he just tripped over his shoelace (however, a guy his age, that would probably hurt like hell). His main motivation in the first film is to make sure that his wife is safe and he does literally everything he can to keep it that way. He's a human, with human feelings and human emotion. At least he was.
Two, there must be a proper villain with a complex plan that is somehow foiled by McClane's antics. The villain, for all intents and purposes, would have succeeded without fail had it not been for John. The villains are somewhat sophisticated and highly intelligent. Hans Gruber in the first film, Simon Gruber in the third film are the cream of the crop of main villains that have opposed McClane. Col. Stuart and Thomas Gabriel from the second and fourth movies respectively, were weaker villains but were still personified opposing forces to McClane. Apparently, there's no need for a villain in the newest entry. Apparently, anyone with a Russian accent sounds scary enough and will serve as opposition to McClane well enough. In a time where Christopher Nolan has proven to us that audiences love a great villain, you'd think there'd be a little more thought put into the writing of the film.
Three, there is always a counterpart to McClane that will help him along his journey that can bounce witty and amusing banter back and forth. This character is softer than McClane and generally brings the lighter side out of him. They soften the hard candy shell around the exterior of the man. Sgt. Powell in the first two movies. Samuel L. Jackson in the third film and Justin Long in the fourth. Each of these characters filled the aforementioned criteria and made each film that much better for it. Apparently, a hollow TV actor cast to play Jack McClane is good enough of a foil to John. Sure, I guess he brings out the softer side, but their conversations have no substance to them. We get it. They're estranged. But, one could really create one hell of a drinking game with how many times they have to remind each other they're family. The dialogue is so stale, I feel like it's been in my cupboard without a sealed lid for months.
And lastly, four, under no circumstances whatsoever is a Die Hard film ever, ever, EVER boring. How could it be? It's Die Hard! It's the greatest action franchise in history! But, alas, this film is boring. There's nothing to care about. There's no deep threat. Once you figure out what exactly the McClanes are fighting for, it's redundant and pointless. There's nothing new introduced into the film and hackneyed. There should be no reason to leave the theater with almost no recollection or care of what you've just watched. If I've learned anything over my career as a student studying screenwriting, it's that writing action is hard. I've primarily considered myself a comedic writer, but I'm an avid fan of action films (more specifically 90s action). So, I decided that I was going to try my hand at writing an action movie in the same vein of the films I've come to love. However, there is no action movie if there is no villain motivation. Villain motivation is what drives the action, creates the conflict and the danger. Without it, no action movie exists... or so I thought. Somehow, A Good Day to Die Hard fell through the cracks and was made.
My deepest fear is that this will be the end of the era. The end of John McClane. Live Free or Die Hard wasn't a perfect movie, and was significantly weakened by the studios trying to reap more profit from making it PG-13, but it still felt like a Die Hard film. This movie isn't even good enough to be considered a retarded cousin to Die Hard. I really hope that one last film is made, the apology film (much like Ocean's 13 to Ocean's 12) in order for avid fans, like myself, to have the closure I've always wanted. Until then, I have to see a wolf in McClane's clothing prancing around pretending to be a part of something better than it is.
D
