This one is really a shame. I’ve been a huge fan of the Die Hard movies for a long time, and I still watch the original trilogy (predominantly the first one) quite frequently. However, the latest addition not only falls short of expectations, but almost nose dives towards the ground. The lack of a decent plot is the main flaw here, but characters are also unmemorable and the dialogue is sparse and flat. There are a number of decent action scenes that attempt to save the film, but even these fail to deliver the excitement of the other Die Hard films.
Let me begin with the plot, as this is the most fundamental weakness of the film, and in some way I could blame all other failures at least in part on this flaw. The story ark of most action films, including the previous four Die Hard installments, is lacking here. Within a few minutes of the film’s opening, we are already thrust right into the action. John McClane (Bruce Willis) is in Moscow looking for his son Jack (Jai Courtney). There’s some sort of conspiracy involving the Russian defense minister and a shady past with a physicist at Chernobyl, but we don’t really care about this narrative. To be frank, I didn’t really care about Jack McClane either.
A Good Day to Die Hard doesn’t take the time to introduce the characters in a sensible manner, and thus we never grow attached to them. The unbelievable action they are later thrust into doesn’t really matter to us because the initial setup was so dramatically misguided. In addition, the climax of the film isn’t really a climax at all, as the latter half of the movie is in essence one large action scene. Clocking in at only 98 minutes, we are never given a chance to fear the villain, or to experience the roller-coaster effect of a conventional action film.
Let me begin with the plot, as this is the most fundamental weakness of the film, and in some way I could blame all other failures at least in part on this flaw. The story ark of most action films, including the previous four Die Hard installments, is lacking here. Within a few minutes of the film’s opening, we are already thrust right into the action. John McClane (Bruce Willis) is in Moscow looking for his son Jack (Jai Courtney). There’s some sort of conspiracy involving the Russian defense minister and a shady past with a physicist at Chernobyl, but we don’t really care about this narrative. To be frank, I didn’t really care about Jack McClane either.
A Good Day to Die Hard doesn’t take the time to introduce the characters in a sensible manner, and thus we never grow attached to them. The unbelievable action they are later thrust into doesn’t really matter to us because the initial setup was so dramatically misguided. In addition, the climax of the film isn’t really a climax at all, as the latter half of the movie is in essence one large action scene. Clocking in at only 98 minutes, we are never given a chance to fear the villain, or to experience the roller-coaster effect of a conventional action film.
This leads me nicely to my next point, about the lack of a convincing villain. Here the flaw is that there is really no single villain figure who charms us with their evil. I suppose there is one antagonist, who is supposed to be a surprising villain, but they are so unmemorable and their motives so irrelevant, that once again, audiences don’t care. The original Die Hard trilogy, and to a lesser extent the fourth film, all had enticing villains, be they Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber or Jeremy Iron’s Simon. In addition to a charismatic villain, John McClane was also a witty hero, an everyman with smart-ass comebacks and a knack for killing terrorists. Here we see Bruce Willis’ iconic character as far less animated, John’s lines have been reduced and his engagement with other characters is no longer as fun to watch. Also, the action scenes presented here are often so over-the-top unrealistic that the film looses the spirit of the franchise. The first Die Hard set out to make an action film with plenty of tension and thrills, but one that wasn’t too far outside the realm of what was possible. While each movie since has pushed that boundary farther (with Live Free or Die Hard pushing it a little too far in several scenes), this new addition has certainly overstepped its bounds, resulting in thrills that we aren’t all that thrilled about.
While my review must seem very negative, I must also contradict myself by saying that A Good Day to Die Hard isn’t all bad. There is still some spark in Bruce Willis’ John McClane, and some of the action scenes are done well. That being said, if this franchise plans to live on, this film cannot be repeated. A dull plot that didn’t encourage dialogue or character expression, as well as unrealistic action, all contributed to the failure of this movie. Writer Skip Woods’ screenplay is a failure, and director John Moore clearly has a fetish-esque love of explosions. Overall, A Good Day to Die Hard is not a total flop, but it still tarnishes the Die Hard name. I remain excited for a sixth installment in the franchise, but would warn producers to be careful, as another film like this could ruin the series’ reputation.
While my review must seem very negative, I must also contradict myself by saying that A Good Day to Die Hard isn’t all bad. There is still some spark in Bruce Willis’ John McClane, and some of the action scenes are done well. That being said, if this franchise plans to live on, this film cannot be repeated. A dull plot that didn’t encourage dialogue or character expression, as well as unrealistic action, all contributed to the failure of this movie. Writer Skip Woods’ screenplay is a failure, and director John Moore clearly has a fetish-esque love of explosions. Overall, A Good Day to Die Hard is not a total flop, but it still tarnishes the Die Hard name. I remain excited for a sixth installment in the franchise, but would warn producers to be careful, as another film like this could ruin the series’ reputation.