If you go into it, A Good Day to Die Hard is probably the worst example of reviving "old school" action movies of the 80s and 90s (up there with The Expendables) as the fifth in the series is possibly the most watered down and derivative example of what Die Hard actually is as a franchise.
So when he discovers his son has been imprisoned in Russia, John McClane takes it upon himself to go out there and... save him?... Only for the political prisoner his son was protecting to be attacked by terrorists. The two McClanes must settle their broken relationship if they want to get to the bottom of a political conspiracy.
See how I couldn't go through the synopsis without struggling? Die Hard 5 has so many ambiguous plot devices and derivative excuses for having action sequences. It isn't explained why John McClane goes to Russia, in fact he is constantly reminded how he causes trouble wherever he goes, and... twenty minutes in he does. He barges into a CIA operation and complains he was only on a vacation.
This isn't John McClane acting like John McClane... the formula for Die Hard films is that he finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, not barging in to other people's problems to blow stuff up! (even Die Hard 4.0 got this right!)
Whoever directed this needs to be introduced to something. It is called a steady-cam. Good lord I thought the movie business learned after Quantum of Solace that shaky camera doesn't work. This actually makes Michael Bay's direction feel poised and controlled! Even atmospheric, slow shots are wobbling all over the place like the cameraman's drunk; your eye gets misled constantly as the camera skews left and right, it is haphazard while characters are so much as walking!
The film itself is mercifully short, though you will find yourself begging for more to give the spontaneous and juvenile plot some sustenance! What kills this film and renders it little more than a line of explosion effects (asides an over-complicated twisty-turn plot) are the villains themselves. Die Hard villains are mostly pretty fun! Jeremy Irons and Alan Rickman were gloriously silly. Even the guy in 4.0 was interesting. Here the villains barely exist! We don't get to know them, we have no idea who they are... and the film is so badly paced that it kills them off before the audience can truly appreciate them.
So what works in A Good Day to Die Hard, if anything? Well, if you forgive them being shot in horrendous shaky-cam, the action sequences are pretty excitingly executed, and I do appreciate the franchise clearly continuing with a family theme: McClane hits rock bottom in the third film Vengeance, and 4.0 and 5 are about him trying to reach out to his kids. It's just a shame this film couldn't make that more prominent with a better screenplay.
I haven't even gotten to the part where John McClane couldn't say his catchphrase because of the stupid 12A rating... Or you can read my 12A rant.
It is quite sad then that this has happened to the franchise, then again, you can just get the trilogy. Die Hard 1 - 3 are excellent and have very little wrong with them!
Additional Marshmallows: Yes, I saw your references to the original Die Hard... They hurt me... They made me want to watch a better movie.
Also, I would like to stress that this film cannot be excused by the theory: "Oh, it is just a Die Hard movie, it isn't meant to be intelligent". While the previous films weren't world changing drama by any means, they were a hell of a lot more rewarding than this. I know, I rewatched them only a few weeks ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment