What makes a Die Hard film a Die Hard film?
Doing this retrospective – marathon-ing through the franchise -- I've discovered that the series has had a wildly inconsistent track record in terms of actual Die Hard tropes. Could it be that the most often imitated action film (outside of The Matrix) doesn't even adhere to the mechanics it set in motion? Is it possible that my fellow podcasters were correct: Is the Die Hardformula not really a formula at all?
A Good Day to Die Hard will challenge your expectations of what to demand from a Die Hard film. But is it wrong for doing so, or are we just catching on to the fact that the franchise has been passing us by for years?
John McClane’s son is in deep. After an assassination attempt goes ball up, Jack McClane (Jai Courtney) is arrested, pulling his estranged father (Willis) out of New York City
An explosion turns Jack’s sentence into a mandatory car chase, bringing him in direct contact with Yuri Komarov (Sebastian Koch) who is about to get buried by corrupt government officials in a series of overly-elaborate but barely interesting plot threads.
Together, McClane, Yuri, and Jack --- ugh. Y’know what? It’s a sad day when I can’t follow the plot mechanics of a Die Hard film. That used to be the best part…
The People Who Get Paid to Talk:
As usual, Bruce Willis seems to be having a ball. As he should. This is his star vehicle and he's the only original cast member still standing. However, as much fun as it is to see John McClane drive his own adventure, it's becomes more and more obvious that McClane isn't enough. He needs an Alan Rickman, a Samuel L. Jackson, or a Reginald VelJohnson to bounce off. Jai Courtney is not that actor.
Director John Moore does bring the action. There is a pretty amazing car chase (albeit with Private Ryan-esque shakey-cam) and a pair of showdowns in Chernobyl
What's Action A No No:
The forced family drama. Every action sequence is followed up by awkward father-son moments. Quite honestly, it makes McClane look pathetic and wimpy. It also makes John, Jr. sound like a cry baby.
I get what screenwriter Skip Woods (Swordfish) was shooting for: If McClane was estranged from his wife then the same must be said for his kids. It's a logical conclusion but it turns our 80s hero into yet another mopey, modern day protagonist. For just once, I wish a screenwriter wouldn't display his daddy issues so openly.
So what makes a Die Hard film a Die Hard film? Is it the shorts? Is it the lack of shoes? Is it the plot twist? Or is it the motivational family drama? And let's not be trite and say something obvious like Bruce Willis. Truth be told, AGDDH has all these things and still manages to look and feel unrecognizable compared to the sacred trilogy.
No, what makes a Die Hard Die Hard is its standards. Because the first film was copied so much, the subsequent sequels had to be better than everything else. Die Hard 2 tried to stick to the idea of a formula and, despite feeling somewhat repetitive, earned high marks. Die Hard with a Vengeance totally broke the mold, eschewing reoccurring concepts but maintaining its link to the series in a big way. Basically, they had a standard to uphold, so they aimed higher.
With Live Free or Die Hard and A Good Day to Die Hard, the franchise stumbles towards a different direction, but the standard has dropped off. Now, the new Die Hard trilogy (Willis claims to have one more in him) is like any other action film and that's something John McClane should never have to be associated with. Maybe McClane should follow Hans Gruber's suggestion from the 1988 original and just "walk off into the sunset with Grace Kelly."
 |
| "It was Gary Cooper, asshole." |
0 comments:
Post a Comment