After several years, New York City cop John McClane is back on the big screen. One of America's favorite "cowboys" is back in another explosive outing, this time taking place in the streets of Russia. The fifth film in the "Die Hard" series, action star Bruce Willis has established a successful franchise with sequels that are, arguably, all worthy predecessors to the original (though none of them have managed to be better). Does "A Good Day to Die Hard" live up to the series' iconic name?
McClane's son Jack (Jai Courtney) has gotten into a bit of trouble during a special ops mission in Moscow. In the process of trying to crack a terrorist plot, Jack is taken into custody by the Russian police. But no worries, because daddy McClane is going on a "vacation" to Russia in order to relax, lay by the pool, and....wait, that's not right. He's going on "vacation" to find his son, kill a bunch of "scumbags", and create some big explosions. And that is all you need to know for the simple plot of this movie.
But it's ok for films to have simple plots at times. Look at the original "Die Hard" back in 1988, the whole film revolved around a cop taking down a bunch of bad guys with guns, and it all took place in a building...great film. And the other "Die Hard" films were very similar in plot structure. Unfortunately, this film's big problem (of several) was that it tried to be more like other films.
First, "Die Hard 5" tries to be like James Bond. I thought this during the very first scene of the film when the jazzy spy music started playing. Nice cars were paraded everywhere, attractive females in nice dresses were walking around...it was very Bond-ish. And if that was not enough, the plot tried to stock up on these plot twists such as those found in spy-thrillers. Unfortunately it was a sloppy attempt at story-telling.
At one point of the film, I actually asked one of the people with me what was going on...he did not know, and neither did the others. At this point I said to myself, "This is TOO MUCH thinking for a Die Hard film." I don't watch Die Hard for a plot-twisting mystery film, I watch Die Hard to see John McClane beat up tons of guys (more on that later) and make sarcastic remarks.
Second, "Die Hard 5" tries to be like "The Fast and Furious" films. This film is only 90 minutes, and so there is not a lot of time to establish a plot and characters in that time period. Since the film doesn't even do that, there is even more time for some great actions sequences full of guns and fists. Instead I got a drawn-out, car chasing sequence that felt like it lasted for a half hour...it was entertaining for the first five minutes. And I could have let that go, except that the other action scenes were increasingly sub-par that I was left only remembering all the cars crashing into each-other. Where is the gun-shooting, punch throwing goodness of all the other films? It is scarce in this film.
The heart of the flaw of "A Good Day to Die Hard" is this: the film tried to be more than a "Die Hard" film, it tried to create a new formula. The problem is...there was never a problem with the old formula to begin with. The Die Hard films had a good track record...until this point. This new installment strays so far away from the original's heart and soul in its attempt to create something new. And that something is a mess full of cheesy dialogue, an unnecessary and weak story, and surprisingly enough...not enough action worthy of the series. I give it one star out of four.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" has a running time of 97 minutes and is rated R for violence and language.
