Lets start with a statement, one that some readers may find harder to accept than Sean Connery's Irish accent in The Untouchables; Die Hard 4.0 (Live Free or Die Hard) is a good film. I won't say it is a great film; this after all is my first Blog, and I don't want to get off on the wrong foot. For example, you would never talk about worrying bowel movements on your first date with a gorgeous blonde (I waited until Date 3, and she was more auburn). People who disagree have clearly not seen A Good Day To Die Hard.
So for the first time, I ask; What Went Wrong With "A Good Day To Die Hard"?
First off, I have only just realised that it is actually called A Good Day To Die Hard. I was just calling it Die Hard 5 up to this point. Did anyone truthfully call it A Good Day To Die Hard when ordering their overpriced ticket? I think not. So in order for me to feel powerful, I shall henceforth refer to "A Good Day To Die Hard" as Die Hard 5. Even Bruce Willis would agree; I saw the infamous interview on BBC's The One Show (YouTube) and it was almost as painful to watch as the film itself. He has a look of disappointment and self loathing throughout, the same look I am greeted with after 2 minutes of what I always think was outstanding love making. He questions the title, does it make sense? In hindsight, if an actor has the same amount of enthusiasm as a vegan in an abattoir whilst promoting their new film, you shouldn't hold your breath.
As a side note: The director's last film was Max Payne, a film everyone has seen and instantly forgotten (if your reading this thinking "But I haven't seen it Jarmer", my point is proven). I think Mark Wahlberg was in it?
Prior to Die Hard 5's release, I read the usual features and interviews with the cast and crew. What were the main points that kept getting referenced? How much they respect the first film. The first film had Bruce Willis using a chain to choke an angry German who seems to share DNA with The Terminator. What does he do in Die Hard 5? He calls the villains "scum-bags." Several times. What happened to the New York cop that used C4 to take out two terrorists (sorry, scum-bags)? Come on Bruce, you once killed The Sheriff of Nottingham by taping a gun to your head. You even shot yourself in Die Hard 4.0 just so you could kill an internet hacker. Surely a guy with such anger issues as yourself doesn't use the term scum bags to describes killers, thieves and generic Russian stereotypes. Have some self respect and decency; call them "Mother F*ckers."
Now I'm not saying I could do a better job, but there are many ways it could have been avoided from the shambles that came out on February 14 (not your average rom-com). First, make him struggle. Not once did
Bruce show his years. If the character of John McClane struggles in his twenties pulling glass out of his feet, how can he show no signs of struggle in his fifties? I refer back to the previous point of shooting yourself in the shoulder; do you have no aches, pains or restriction with that area of the body? I broke my little finger once catching a basketball and its still not straight with the rest of my fingers. Of course I'm no John McClane, but on this evidence neither is Bruce Willis anymore.
Why did his son have to be in it? More importantly, why was he working for the CIA? If my dad was almost killed at mum's Christmas party when I was a kid, I'd veer away from that area of work. Who was his career's advisor? Get a job in IT or telesales maybe? Always the chance to progress and some great offers with the right companies. Also, I'm no government expert but why would the CIA recruit somebody who's family annually attracts the attention of criminals, terrorists and Jeremy Irons?
So do you agree? Any thoughts you would like to add? Maybe I have been too harsh on the latest McClane adventure.
I'm currently playing through Aliens: Colonial Marines, which will be the topic of my next blog if you want to read more ramblings of my disapointments.
Hopefully see you soon
