Movie Review #52 A Good Day To Die Hard (2013)

- If you're going to die, die hard

After the lengthy artistic and thought-provoking films I've reviewed in the past month I thought it might be time to do something a little lighter. Well, what could be lighter than a fifth movie in a long standing action series known for good one-liners with a bumpy ride of hits and misses through the series? Yes, my last review before my review format changes will be the latest installment of Die Hard.

No Oscar nominations for this one, that’s for sure. A Good Day to Die Hard didn’t have much credit going in, after the last one was PG-13, had some incredibly bad writing, didn’t have John McClane’s (played by Bruce Willis) catch phrase in the theatre release and had such flat villains, even more so when you compare them to the series’ original baddies.

A Good Day to Die Hard starts with a thin connection to the fourth movie. John is being driven to the airport by daughter Lucy (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead) to find and visit his son Jack (played by Jai Courtney). A Good Day is certainly a sequel to the fourth movie as it deals with John’s interactions between his children with him. The first three he had his partners and his troubles with his wife, but they’ve progressed with his partner now being his son and although his marital problems are never brought up his continual absence in his son’s life is the new problem. This is the first problem with the movie. It’s really out in far left field with the problems. Jack has to know that his father the police officer is basically a super hero in this world. None of his heroics were top secret; sure he was absent but not without the BEST reasons. The feud between Jack and John seemed completely unbelievable. The writing by Skip Woods was quite weak even after watching Live Free or Die Hard just prior. Director John Moore has to take just as much of the heat here as well along with anyone else who had input. Following up with flat villains of Live Free, A Good Day gets even worse.  Even with the double crossing and backstabbing that all the Russian villains throw at you none of them even seem intelligent. Jack and John just go in guns blazing at every single situation and come out more or less fine. Nothing was smart about the action, and yeah, maybe that is fine for a run of the mill action movie, or a stand-alone film, but Die Hard was never that. The original was smart and well-put together. A Good Day was also incredibly short, hitting just 98 minutes. That’s 26 minutes shorter than the next shortest Die Hard (2). Even with it’s hour and half run time it’s extremely padded. The early car chase which looks fine, seems to run on much too long and it lost me on the level of believably. At least Live Free waited till the final act for me to say I can’t believe this is what they want me to believe.

The Die Hard series can’t be guilty of making the same film over and over at least and that is something to be commended. I mean they put the money into style and not substance as they say. The problem is as the series goes on, the stories are getting weaker. Change is good but it hasn't been for the better and this is probably the weakest of the five. Die Hard (1988) was a brilliant movie. Perfect, no but as far as action movies go it is certainly a great choice and as an added bonus totally counts as a Christmas movie! Bruce Willis is the everyday kind of guy. Just a cop, put into a terrible situation but he handles it like a top notch action hero in the realm of reality. As the series go on, the stage keeps getting larger. An airport, city and now a foreign country. They keep getting bigger, and maybe that is logical step to make the sequels bigger but the greatness that is in the first because of the closeness of it all is lost completely by the time this one rolls around.

Grumpy Russian never took off as a meme.

I feel as if Bruce Willis still has “it” in him even within this dud. I think he can stand with other younger action stars and still has a place upon the mountain of greats. He hasn't fallen at all, but I feel this movie, moreso than the fourth, was a huge disappointment for the character John McClane and the resume for Willis. This leaves a lot of the blame on director and writer as I said previously. I think they failed to realize why the first few were good and why the fourth was bad. They kept going with the idea that the fourth film was great and made it worse.

I give it 4/10

PS: I really hope they don't think they are going to replace John with Jack by the time Die Hard 6 or 7 rolls around.