"A Good Day To Die Hard" - directed by John Moore
I surprised myself by how excited I was to see this one and it disappoints me greatly that I feel that way.
To explain - I believe "Die Hard" (the first movie) to be as close to perfect as an action movie can be.
It is suspenseful, cleverly scripted, masterfully directed and cast and has many iconic moments that few have been able to replicate.
I liked the appallingly named "Die Harder" a lot too.
It was a sequel that captured much of the feel of the first film.
The third I possibly like better than the second - it's close.
And then there is the fourth.
Nothing too awful about it but it doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie to me.
An average director and a PG rating sucked most of the life out of it.
Having daughter Lucy in tow was a terrible idea made less awful by the inspired casting of the wonderful Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
I didn't hate it but I certainly didn't get anywhere close to loving it.
It felt like it was being made for a new generation of fans - not the ones that grew up with the first three and that is fine.
So with the announcement of the fifth in the series and the revelation that John McLane's son would feature I was not incredibly optimistic.
Director John Moore's attachment did little to ease my trepidation.
He has helmed a host of competently made but decidedly average flicks like "Max Payne", "Behind Enemy Lines" and remakes "Flight of the Phoenix" and "The Omen".
Then some hope as it was revealed that the studio was allowing an 'R' rated release.
This combined with a preview screening at the fantastic Xtreme Screen at Hoyts Sylvia Park had me pretty amped up for this film.
That huge screen is superb,
So first things first - that 'R' rating.
Locally "A Good Day To Die Hard" scores an 'M' but bear in mind that the third film did too and it had some nasty moments.
The perversely sexy Sam Phillips carving up a guard with a knife was just one of the violent action 'highlights' that strained the censor's rating.
This one is not quite as gritty as "Die Hard With A Vengeance" but it is certainly well advanced of "Live Free Or Die Hard" in terms of the action violence.
There are bullets to the head on more than one occasion and some helicopter related carnage that fans of Willis' excellent "The Last Boy Scout" will appreciate.
It's a soft 'R' but an 'R' it indeed is.
What is therefore baffling is the decision to trim back the shot of Yuliya Snigir peeling back her motorcycle leathers to reveal a rather inappropriate amount of skin for a Russian climate .
As evidenced in the trailer there is no nudity so what is the problem?
It's a head scratcher given that the scene was promoted heavily in every trailer pre-release.
The result is a very clumsy cut that tosses the character from a partial state of undress in a parking garage to a cocktail gown several floors up.
It's no biggie but I can't make sense of the decision.
What is a big deal is the horrific use of that good old scourge of modern action flicks- the shaky cam.
It rears its ugly head during the action scenes with the car chase in the first third suffering quite a lot from its effect.
It's a device that can work well- refer to the second Bourne movie- not so much the third which overuses it.
It can intensify the action and heighten the suspense if used smartly and sparingly.
Director Moore bizarrely elects to use it at completely inappropriate moments though.
Twice in non-action scenes he uses it as people board vehicles and it is a complete waste of time.
It's akin to using soft focus to show someone picking their nose.
The technique is at odds with the intention and the tone of the scene.
Perhaps it is testament to the appeal of the series and the goodwill that has been earned with most of the previous films that the odd decisions that Moore makes don't impact the enjoyment as much as they might.
Willis has charisma to burn and John McLane is to the actor what Rambo is to Stallone or The Terminator is to Arnold.
He is in his element.
His 57 years of age proves no barrier to believability even when the usual ridiculous level of personal injury that the series and the character is known for occurs.
Watching him hit by not one but two large vehicles, crash one and tumble from another still in motion is basically a live action Bugs Bunny cartoon.
He mugs shamelessly as if he recognises the joke and you expect him to wink at the camera at any moment but this is Willis doing what he does best and it is thanks to him that anything works at all.
Jai Courtney does well as McLane junior but really the character is little more than a plot device.
He is a perfectly effective action man and the banter between he and Willis works even if the emotional drama does not.
It is almost a cliche of the series that John McLane has strained relationships with all of his family from his wife in part one and three to his daughter in part four.
The subplot detailing the lack of Father-Son bonding between the two is weak and unconvincing but thankfully doesn't get in the way too much.
There is enough going on and the pacing is zippy enough that the cracks don't open up to fatal degrees.
We are only sixteen minutes in when the first explosions erupt and a high carnage car chase ensues.
From there it is helicopter gunships, shootouts and multi-storey plunges through windows and scaffolding until we reach the finale in a predictable but interesting real world location.
Mixed in there is the lovely Yuliya Snigir as Irina who looks like Lauren Graham one minute, Eva Longoria the next and at one point Beatrice Dalle from "Betty Blue".
The sneering villain played by Radivoje Bukvic comes off like a Kim Coates impression but it is a pretty good one.
There are things to appreciate with this film for sure.
It is a perfectly fine action flick.
Normally that would be a complimentary statement but given that this is a Die Hard movie it is almost a putdown.
Shouldn't we expect more from a series built on suspense and hardcore action?
Don't we have the right as adult movie goers to expect our 'R' rated action movies to be gritty, hardcore affairs that have us squirming with delight as our hero beats and shoots three shades of poop out of the bad guys?
Action movies at their best are cathartic rollercoaster rides.
This one is basically a family friendly log flume ride that has moments of excitement and is never dull but leaves you in no doubt that it is intended for too broad an audience to truly thrill.
It plays it safe more often than it aims high.
It isn't a true Die Hard movie for me and I suspect that even people who love the previous installment will be mildly disappointed.
It is always fun seeing Willis play this character and I enjoyed it but I had to push from my mind all memory of the glory days when machine pistol straps slowly tore as Willis dangled in elevator shafts and knee-caps were removed from slimy terrorists by way of Berretta handgun.
And boy- did I really have to forget that villains were once as amazing as Hans Gruber and partners were as densely layered and fascinatingly performed as Sgt Al Powell.
A director of the calibre of John McTiernan is required to take hold of this series and return it to its rightful place at the top of the action heap.
Moore tries to pay homage with slo-mo reverse shots paying tribute to the famous demise of the first films lead villain and there are numerous lines referencing previous events and lines of dialogue.
It's all well and good but this one finds nothing new to add to the series while it is leeching off the films preceding it.
We need someone like the sadly departed Tony Scott or Shane Back to drag it back to its roots.
It pains me to say it but unless this happens it might be time for John McLane to hand in the badge.
And just because I like you... here is what you won't see in the movie.
To explain - I believe "Die Hard" (the first movie) to be as close to perfect as an action movie can be.
It is suspenseful, cleverly scripted, masterfully directed and cast and has many iconic moments that few have been able to replicate.
I liked the appallingly named "Die Harder" a lot too.
It was a sequel that captured much of the feel of the first film.
The third I possibly like better than the second - it's close.
And then there is the fourth.
Nothing too awful about it but it doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie to me.
An average director and a PG rating sucked most of the life out of it.
Having daughter Lucy in tow was a terrible idea made less awful by the inspired casting of the wonderful Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
I didn't hate it but I certainly didn't get anywhere close to loving it.
It felt like it was being made for a new generation of fans - not the ones that grew up with the first three and that is fine.
So with the announcement of the fifth in the series and the revelation that John McLane's son would feature I was not incredibly optimistic.
Director John Moore's attachment did little to ease my trepidation.
He has helmed a host of competently made but decidedly average flicks like "Max Payne", "Behind Enemy Lines" and remakes "Flight of the Phoenix" and "The Omen".
 |
| Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney and Sebastian Koch |
This combined with a preview screening at the fantastic Xtreme Screen at Hoyts Sylvia Park had me pretty amped up for this film.
That huge screen is superb,
So first things first - that 'R' rating.
Locally "A Good Day To Die Hard" scores an 'M' but bear in mind that the third film did too and it had some nasty moments.
The perversely sexy Sam Phillips carving up a guard with a knife was just one of the violent action 'highlights' that strained the censor's rating.
This one is not quite as gritty as "Die Hard With A Vengeance" but it is certainly well advanced of "Live Free Or Die Hard" in terms of the action violence.
There are bullets to the head on more than one occasion and some helicopter related carnage that fans of Willis' excellent "The Last Boy Scout" will appreciate.
It's a soft 'R' but an 'R' it indeed is.
What is therefore baffling is the decision to trim back the shot of Yuliya Snigir peeling back her motorcycle leathers to reveal a rather inappropriate amount of skin for a Russian climate .
As evidenced in the trailer there is no nudity so what is the problem?
It's a head scratcher given that the scene was promoted heavily in every trailer pre-release.
The result is a very clumsy cut that tosses the character from a partial state of undress in a parking garage to a cocktail gown several floors up.
It's no biggie but I can't make sense of the decision.
 |
| The insanely attractive Yuliya Snigir - underused overexposure |
What is a big deal is the horrific use of that good old scourge of modern action flicks- the shaky cam.
It rears its ugly head during the action scenes with the car chase in the first third suffering quite a lot from its effect.
It's a device that can work well- refer to the second Bourne movie- not so much the third which overuses it.
It can intensify the action and heighten the suspense if used smartly and sparingly.
Director Moore bizarrely elects to use it at completely inappropriate moments though.
Twice in non-action scenes he uses it as people board vehicles and it is a complete waste of time.
It's akin to using soft focus to show someone picking their nose.
The technique is at odds with the intention and the tone of the scene.
Perhaps it is testament to the appeal of the series and the goodwill that has been earned with most of the previous films that the odd decisions that Moore makes don't impact the enjoyment as much as they might.
Willis has charisma to burn and John McLane is to the actor what Rambo is to Stallone or The Terminator is to Arnold.
He is in his element.
His 57 years of age proves no barrier to believability even when the usual ridiculous level of personal injury that the series and the character is known for occurs.
Watching him hit by not one but two large vehicles, crash one and tumble from another still in motion is basically a live action Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Jai Courtney does well as McLane junior but really the character is little more than a plot device.
He is a perfectly effective action man and the banter between he and Willis works even if the emotional drama does not.
It is almost a cliche of the series that John McLane has strained relationships with all of his family from his wife in part one and three to his daughter in part four.
The subplot detailing the lack of Father-Son bonding between the two is weak and unconvincing but thankfully doesn't get in the way too much.
There is enough going on and the pacing is zippy enough that the cracks don't open up to fatal degrees.
We are only sixteen minutes in when the first explosions erupt and a high carnage car chase ensues.
From there it is helicopter gunships, shootouts and multi-storey plunges through windows and scaffolding until we reach the finale in a predictable but interesting real world location.
 |
| Jai Courtney as McLane junior |
The sneering villain played by Radivoje Bukvic comes off like a Kim Coates impression but it is a pretty good one.
There are things to appreciate with this film for sure.
It is a perfectly fine action flick.
Normally that would be a complimentary statement but given that this is a Die Hard movie it is almost a putdown.
Shouldn't we expect more from a series built on suspense and hardcore action?
Don't we have the right as adult movie goers to expect our 'R' rated action movies to be gritty, hardcore affairs that have us squirming with delight as our hero beats and shoots three shades of poop out of the bad guys?
Action movies at their best are cathartic rollercoaster rides.
This one is basically a family friendly log flume ride that has moments of excitement and is never dull but leaves you in no doubt that it is intended for too broad an audience to truly thrill.
It plays it safe more often than it aims high.
It isn't a true Die Hard movie for me and I suspect that even people who love the previous installment will be mildly disappointed.
It is always fun seeing Willis play this character and I enjoyed it but I had to push from my mind all memory of the glory days when machine pistol straps slowly tore as Willis dangled in elevator shafts and knee-caps were removed from slimy terrorists by way of Berretta handgun.
And boy- did I really have to forget that villains were once as amazing as Hans Gruber and partners were as densely layered and fascinatingly performed as Sgt Al Powell.
 |
| There is no shortage of carnage |
Moore tries to pay homage with slo-mo reverse shots paying tribute to the famous demise of the first films lead villain and there are numerous lines referencing previous events and lines of dialogue.
It's all well and good but this one finds nothing new to add to the series while it is leeching off the films preceding it.
We need someone like the sadly departed Tony Scott or Shane Back to drag it back to its roots.
It pains me to say it but unless this happens it might be time for John McLane to hand in the badge.
| Rated | M for a dozen F-bombs and some largely bloodless gun violence |
| Running Time: | 98 minutes (1hr, 32mins without end credits) |
| Starring: |
| Bruce Willis | --- John McLane |
| Jai Courtney | --- Jack McLane |
| Cole Hauser | --- Collins |
| Sebastian Koch | --- Komarov |
| Mary Elizabeth Winstead | --- Lucy |
| Yuliya Snigir | --- Irina |
| Radivoje Bukvic | --- Alik |
| Amaury Nolasco | --- Murphy |
| Sergei Kolesnikov | --- Chagarin |
| Roman Luknar | --- Anton |
| Zolee Ganxsta | --- MRAP driver |
And just because I like you... here is what you won't see in the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment