Review of A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) by Jack F — 14 Dec 2013

Lot of hate being tossed around for this one. Now before I go any further, I will say with 100% certainty that "A Good Day To Die Hard" is quite flawed, and it's far and away the worst of the "Die Hard" movies. But if I'm being honest, I was entertained enough. And as a big fan of the franchise, I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the reactions from some of the other die-hard fans out there (pun intended). If we're talking mediocre franchise follow-ups, this one doesn't even come close to "Rocky V" territory. I thought the movie succeeded at what it set out to do.

For the most part, anyway.

More than anything--and I'm sure the film's numerous detractors would just love to savage me for saying something like this--the movie seems too short. At a brisk 97 minutes, it sometimes feels like there were parts missing. Things seem to happen too quickly; it's tough to explain, but if you see the movie, you might be able to understand where I'm coming from. It just feels like it should take a bit longer for things to happen, particularly when hero cop John McClane (portrayed once again, obviously, by Bruce Willis) reunites with his son, John Jr. (Jai Courtney), called "Jack." (As a John who also goes by "Jack," I have to say this made me smile; maybe this will make more people aware that, yes, "Jack" is an accepted nickname for "John," and has been for many, MANY years.).

And that's the story this time around. When he hears that his long-estranged son has gotten himself incarcerated in Moscow, good ole McClane leaves the U.S.A. to try and bail him out of this trouble. What McClane doesn't realize is that this "trouble" is a lot worse than he thinks; Jack is actually a spy with the CIA, and he's been working undercover to try and extricate a political prisoner named Komarov (Sebastian Koch), who has intelligence on a corrupt Russian politician...intelligence that people are willing to kill for. Naturally, McClane gets embroiled in the espionage scheme, and all sorts of chaos and mayhem ensues. Yippe-ki-yay, indeed.

There are holes in the story, to be sure (like when, at one point, the two McClanes are tied up, and Jack breaks free using a knife, but in the next shot, somehow both of them are inexplicably unbound...), but it really seems to me that all it would take is a bit more dialogue or a few longer scenes to rectify this. As I said, it seems like the movie may have cut too much out. But even so, I have to say I had a pretty good time. This was kind of like combining a "Die Hard" movie with a Cold-War-esque spy thriller; plop John McClane into one of the older Bond movies (but turn up the violence and add more four-letter words) and this would be the result. That may not sound very appealing to many people--and based on the movie's reception, it wasn't--but it just had a certain charm to me. And there was even a plot twist that I didn't see coming.

I also liked the concept of throwing McClane into Mother Russia. Over the course of the franchise, the character has repeatedly found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, but this time, it occurs in a completely different country. In past instances, whenever McClane found himself in a hostile environment, he was usually able to locate an ally to assist him. And although he has Jack this time, it still feels like the two are basically cut off from any assistance. Once Jack's mission goes awry, they know the CIA isn't about to step in and assist them (so there's even some "Mission: Impossible" undertones here, what with the whole "disavow any knowledge of your actions" deal). And hey, McClane's already taken on some Germans--twice, actually--so this time, why not go with the Russians? The Russkies have made for some compelling movie bad guys over the years.

It needs to be stated, however, that the actual villain(s) this time around is, overall, rather weak. Granted, the "Die Hard" series has always had splendid heavies, so it was going to be hard to compete with the likes of Hans and Simon Gruber and Colonel Stewart anyway. But even considering that, our big bad this time was still underwhelming. There wasn't any real sense of satisfaction when his demise came about. It was really just kinda "meh.".

A lot of people have said that "A Good Day To Die Hard" ruins the whole "everyman" aspect of McClane's personality and takes away his "realism," but c'mon; if you're gong to play that card, then my retort would be that that had already happened back when "Die Hard 2" came out. After all, how realistic is it that the same cop finds himself battling a band of terrorists on Christmas Eve TWICE? And yet, I loved "Die Hard 2" so I'm glad they made it...realism be damned.

And besides, didn't McClane also take down a harrier jet in the last installment in this series? I'd probably argue that nothing in "A Good Day To Die Hard" is as implausible as that (and I still loved that previous movie too).

I stand by my assessment. The fifth "Die Hard" doesn't reach the heights of its predecessors, but it's entertaining enough, and should be more than that for McClane groupies. There's enough action and adrenaline, and though it's nothing we haven't already seen (in previous "Die Hard" entries or other action films in general), it's staged competently enough and it's always fun to hear McClane spouting wisecracks while fighting for his life. This one's worth a rental.

Yippe-ki-yay!