A Good Day to Die Hard

Die Hard movies are based on a formula which consists of these essential things: John McClane (Bruce Willis) kicking butt, a wicked villain (who is a terrorist), great action sequences with a thrilling plot and funny dialogue. McClane besides wearing the white vest and quipping his catchphrase “Yippee-Ki-Yay Motherf*****” must kick ass like a superhero. The action sequences should be unlike anything we've ever seen before. The villain has to be a terrorist, otherwise it would just be any other action film. Live Free or Die Hard (2007) was not the best Die Hard film and was more of an action film but it had it checked off these boxes so it qualifies. It offered good action while being entertaining. A Good Day to Die Hard is neither a Die Hard film nor a good action film. Hell, The Dark Knight Rises (2012) is more of a Die Hard film than this one.

John McClane divorced his wife by the time the third film came along. The fourth one dealt with him reconnecting with his daughter. Obviously, Die Hard 5 should be about him trying to make amends with his son. John McClane Jr is played by Jai Courtney. This isn't a case of bad casting as he shows promise. He is woefully betrayed by the script as his character is as shapeless as the wind. McClane condescendingly laughs when he finds out his son is a spy. This is one of the biggest mistakes of this film. Die Hard is nowhere near the sub-genre of spy films. It shouldn't be or it becomes something else. I wonder who greenlit this film.

The other big mistakes are the laughable plot and substandard action. The film begins with a lesson in how not to shoot and edit an action sequence. I had no idea what was going on and I didn't seem to care either. I would want to care, because well, it's Die Hard! I would try each time another action scene came along but after a point I was bored out of my wits. I think I also tuned out for a brief period. This feat was achieved last by the egregious Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011). John Moore besides picking some tacky zooms and losing all visual talent, decides to mostly blow shit up.

A true fan of the Die Hard series knows the first film is the best. It is one of the best action films ever made. Then the divide of the fans begins as they shout, “the second film is better” or “the third film is better”. I'm in the second category due to only one reason: Samuel L. Jackson. Fan-talk aside, I've always felt Die Hard sequels are full of potential and feel pertinent now more than ever as each film deals with terrorism. I was looking forward to what Die Hard 4 would do as it was coming off the heels of 9/11. They decided to take a different route and I was fine with it. The fifth one could have gone that way but all it does is go back in time to a fuzzy cold war-ish territory and bores the hell out of us. They could have done so many things. The children could have had lives apart from being John McClane's progenies. They could have brought back Sam Jackson. I wouldn't mind them bringing back Justin Long for that matter, considering how badly this film needs any sort of attempt at salvation.

This film makes the profession of screenwriting look bad. Besides a handicapped plot, the film tries hard to set up a family reunion. There is actually a scene where a political prisoner gives John McClane some familial advice. No kidding. To top this, his son overhears this. Do movies still do this? I thought only TV soaps stoop so low to let their characters eavesdrop on information. The lack of imagination of the writers extends further as they pick the Chernobyl disaster as a backdrop. How about a more recent nuclear disaster, you know, not 1986 but 2011? The Fukushima Daiichi disaster for instance? I don't know if they could conjure up a better plot but at least it's a start.

It's not all darkness here. A few wisecracks are funny. Some parts of the action stunts are awesome. The final shot is cool. Alas, you can count these on your fingers, that too on one hand. Surely, this can't be a good thing. I really wanted to enjoy this film, forget liking it or appreciating it. I just wanted to enjoy it. This film doesn't just forget the basic Die Hard rules altogether but even the few rules of making a good action film. Bruce Willis claims he has one more Die Hard film in him before he hangs the vest. I hope he picks a good director to make a fitting farewell to the series. Till then, I would be erasing this film from my memory. It wouldn't be that hard since there isn't much of a film here.

The trailer blew me away but the movie for a lack of a better word simply blew. This is the kind of excuse of a movie made to milk the franchise for all it's worth. The Die Hard movies have never been Oscar worthy material but all have had the requisite elements to be immense fun, great action sequences and at times even better villains. This movie lacks the whole deal, it's just trying really hard to be a Die Hard movie and comes off as just another B-grade action movie elevated by the presence of Mr. Willis.

McClane Sr. (Bruce Willis) travels to Moscow to help McClane Jr. (Jai Courtney) when he learns of his son's impending jail term and possible death sentence. Once there he learns that junior's a C.I.A. operative involved in the extraction of a wealthy Russian businessman, Yuri Komarov (Sebastian Koch) who has a file that contains a great deal of dirt on a corrupt Russian minister, Chagarin. Chagarin doesn't want the file to get out in to the open and puts a carrot chomping, tap-dancing bad-guy on their tail once they break out of the courthouse. An exhaustive demolition derby style chase through Moscow, a military copter attack on a Hotel and a trail of destruction through one of Soviet Union's most iconic sites compiles the action quotient of the film. The comedy/drama section features McClane senior and junior trying to resolve family issues and bonding over the period of the day.

The action sequences feature plenty of destruction but are dull and never seem to end. The protracted vehicular chase through Moscow is a perfect example of that. Gone is the vulnerability of McClane, who to diminishing degree with every sequel had it as an essence of his character. Here he's almost superhuman, surviving multiple car crashes, multiple storey falls and explosions galore he emerges almost unscathed.

The plot is silly to say the least but so were the plots of the earlier parts. By comparison this one is dumber than ever. The twist in the end can almost be seen coming a mile away and when it does finally arrive feels unconvincing.

Bruce Willis is reliable as ever but is reduced to a supporting role to Jai Courtney who has barely 1/10^th the charisma of his on-screen father. The rest of the players leave no impression whatsoever which ultimately makes the movie far less interesting, especially if you look at the cannon of the previous villains and supporting characters in the series.

What I did like were McClane senior showing hints of his old wise-cracking self and the numerous odes to the previous parts in the background score, particularly towards the end.

Being a diehard fan of the series, it was not just disappointing but downright humiliating to be subjected to this tripe masquerading as a Die Hard movie. I'd suggest, you go and rent the earlier ones, I'm going to do that to detox myself of this abomination.

There are Bruce Willis fans and “Die Hard” Bruce Willis fans. I belong to the second group and with all due respect to the franchise, I feel this is the weakest “Die Hard” film ever. That said, if you're an action aficionado then you're in for some memorable action sequences from the word go. There's more action than talking in this film. If you really want to enjoy this film then I suggest you stop comparing it to its predecessors. On the action front, this “Die Hard” film is impeccable and doesn't disappoint. Call it CGI facilitated stunts or whatever you want to but I loved every minute of the action.

Our American hero, John McClane, sets foot on foreign soil for the first time, only to attract more trouble than ever. Let me just put the plot in few simple lines. John travels to Russia, Moscow to meet his long forgotten son, Jack. Much to his surprise, McClane junior is a spy working under cover for CIA, and is currently on a mission to stop few Russian Terrorists from using Uranium to construct weapons of mass destruction. A caring father that he is, John, even after being welcomed by his son with a gun to his head, decides to extend a helping hand. I don't have to tell you what happened next!

With every “Die Hard” film the makers have changed the backdrop; it was a tower in the first part, an airport in the second, New York City in the third and the whole of United States in the fourth installment. It was evident that the next part, which is this film, had to have a foreign backdrop, and guess what, we have one. It's heroic to see an American hero pulling off age-defying stunts in Russia with his son even when most of it appears clich\xe9d.

As I was reading few reviews of the film over the last few days I came across a pattern of criticism. It was mostly around weak plot, shorter running time and bad characterization. I couldn't disagree but as a John McClane fan boy, I didn't pay attention to neither the low rating on IMDB nor the reviews. You may blame the film for its lack of a story but there's no way you'll hate John's likability and essence. There can't be a better McClane than Bruce, and god bless him for he has proved it again. All those who complained about shorter running time need to acknowledge the fact that how in the hell the film could have had a longer running time when there is hardly any story. Its 97 minutes of non-stop action. So, shut up, sit back and enjoy.

The opening car chase in Moscow is undoubtedly one of the best chases of recent times. On the contrary, I found the climax to be way out of McClane's league but given the fact that he is John McClane, it's understandable. Besides Bruce, the rest of the cast, including Jai Courtney, fail to impress. But, my dear Bruce, at 57, is kicking and going strong with action and humour, courtesy his one-liners. Would it be wise to say that this film rests entirely on Bruce's shoulders? Oh yes, one hundred percent.

Having said all this, if there's a 6^th part in the offing then it should have a better plot, better characters and definitely an intimidating villain. This franchise definitely needs a better farewell.