A Good Day to Die Hard Review

Can it ever really be A Good Day to Die Hard? The problems start with the title of the fifth installment in the franchise, but they don't stop there.

John McClane is back and this time he doesn’t know Jack. That's not saying he is stupid, though his brash American ignorance does provide some laughs in this Russian-set sequel. Actually, his son is named Jack, and John has failed to get to know him in the past. Their father and son relationship is so strained that everyone's favourite NYC cop is not even aware his own son is working for the CIA undercover in Russia. McClane Sr. takes off to the mother country to help his wayward son out of what looks like a serious bind.

Very quickly things get back to business. The stunts are nothing short of spectacular. Vehicular mayhem on the streets is followed by shootouts and jumping off buildings that are wonderfully OTT, but once again prove in fine style how hard to kill the McClanes are. The persistent use of old school stunts and practical effects is admirable with every crash of cars and crash landing being bone-crunching and glass-smashingly brutal. That is until the last act ludicrousness that also blighted the last entry in the franchise shows up again in some CG-assisted madness that is simultaneously explosively entertaining and just a little too far over the top. It is a problem familiar from Die Hard 4.0 with that film's jumping-off-jet action requiring a reliance on CG rendering that is disappointing to die hard old school action fans.

However, most of the action is delirious fun and what we would expect of the franchise. On the other hand Skip Woods’ script must shoulder most of the blame for the shortcomings of A Good Day to Die Hard. While McClane gets to banter with his estranged son and raise the odd smirk, the character feels like a third wheel in the first half, supplementary to requirements and crow barred into the action carelessly. There is a silly last act rug pull and some clangers as the climax approaches, while McClane has lost much of his world weary wit that has made him such a fun character to watch in the past. The relationship with Jack shows promise with some fun banter between the pair but soon descends into cheesiness.

It is becoming increasingly hard to care for what the McClane's are fighting for. While money has always been a factor in the villains' plots throughout the franchise, the first also had a building full of hostages, the second had planes threatening to drop out of the sky and the third has schools full of children at risk, and therefore to care about. Crucially the fourth in the franchise failed to raise this level of threat and it is a similar problem in A Good Day to Die Hard.

While few will dispute that there was never a better day for this franchise to have died hard than after the towering success of the first film, many (including myself) will also defend the rest of the original trilogy for their further attempts to make McClane die in the hardest of ways. How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice, thrice, four times and now inconceivably a fifth time after all? Well the fundamental problem with particularly the last three in the series is that this is far from the same shit happening to the same guy again and again. In fact, starting with Die Hard with a Vengeance, John McClane's antics have been less and less constricted, the Christmas time setting was lost and much of what made the first film work was lost. Fans don't want too much originality from a sequel and McClane has never been as thrilling when he has a whole city to run around in.

The producers are very much like the villains of the series, dazzling audiences with spectacle while they secretly rob us of our money. Why a director like Moore and writer like Woods are hired for such a huge franchise is mysterious. Surely A Good Day to Die Hard should attract the biggest names in Hollywood, not the guys who brought us deeply average entertainment such as The Omen remake and The A Team film. Moore does a fine job and for the most part should be commended on his handling of the thrilling action sequences but the flaws lie mostly with the script. Those action scenes are shot and edited with a precision lacking in many modern action films but McClane's dialogue should be more fun than this. His repetition of certain grumbles is a constant limitation of the script.

A Good Day to Die Hard is incredibly short and feels it too. The running rime is brief compared to other films in the franchise and the pace is incredibly brusque. The set up is economical, the set pieces whiz by like bullets and before you know it the film is entering its final third with barely enough time to have reacquainted yourself with McClane or dug deep enough into the family history and reasons for John and Jack's hostility.

Die-hard Die Hard fans will, again, have to wince their way through the deeply saddening lack of bloody violence too. Again showing little respect for the fan base, A Good Day to Die Hard has been trimmed for a 12A rating and it definitely shows in places with a couple of climactic moments being surely snipped to appease the censors. It's not a family film so it’s deeply sad to see the scissors back at work.

One of the biggest problems with the film is the persistent musical refrains familiar from the rest of the franchise. While this wonderful music provides continuity through the series, it also emerges at pivotal moments and drags those of us far too familiar with the original film right back to the past glories and renders anything new insignificant in comparison. However a new generation not raised on the classic first installment will most likely find as much to love in this fresh entry in the franchise as oldies did in the first.

There is the temptation to hope for a sixth entry that can set the wrongs right and Willis and Fox will no doubt be all over it if this one makes a tidy enough profit. On the other hand, A Good Day to Die Hard is an improvement on Die Hard 4.0 and therefore it might be a good day to retire on a relatively high note. After all, a disappointing sixth entry might finally ensure that the franchise dies… hard.

Olympus Has Fallen Review

Gerard Butler stars in Die Hard in the White House, aka Olympus Has Fallen! Fuck yeah! Forget Team America, this flag waving assault on the heart of American political power is gloriously old school; explosive, unapologetic, possibly pretty xenophobic but a hell of a lot of fun.

Olympus Has Fallen has secret service man Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) as the only guy left standing on the inside of the White House when North Korean terrorists break in, sealing themselves in the bunker below with the President (Aaron Eckhart) and his staff. Banning has to get all John McClane on the rest of the baddies in order to save the President, the President's son and anyone else caught in the firing line of these dastardly North Koreans.

Olympus Has Fallen is the kind of movie I grew up on. In the wake of Die Hard, we were treated to Die Hard on a boat (Under Seige), on a plane (Passenger 57), on a train (Under Seige 2), in an airport (Die Hard 2), on a bus (Speed), on another boat (Speed 2)... bascially anywhere you could set one man against a group of heavily armed terrorists, we got it! But never Die Hard in the White House... until now!

I suspect most screenwriters would have laughed at the idea of terrorists not only getting into the White House but also into the bunker beneath with the President so any ideas were scrapped early on. But the bonkers premise provides an absolutely awesome assualt early in Olympus Has Fallen which the rest of the film struggles to live up to.

The terrorists are ruthless, efficient and incredibly bold in their manouvres and the guards and secret service men at the White House suddenly find themselves hopelessly ountnumbered and out gunned. Olympus Has Fallen actually manages to make this outrageous scenario seem plausible, despite the ridiculous number of special agents that willingly run into high calibre gunfire. It's an epic set piece; violent, explosive, erratic, chaotic and almost completely believable. And boy does the body count rise quickly.

Butler's Mike Banning finds himself virtually alone in the White House, playing cat and mouse with disposable North Korean baddies while the executions and body count continue to rise around him. His dispatch techniques are unapolegetically brutal, his quips not quite the standard of John McClane's best but still providing the odd laugh.

Olympus Has Fallen is old school to the core. It is bloody, brutal and unashamed of its patriotic, bordering on racist caricatures. When I was growing up, the baddies were always clearly labelled as the Russians or the Chinese or the Libyans or some other nationality. It never made me fear these people and I hope this film is accepted as the silly escapist piece of fiction it is. Conveniently it is not the North Koreans that are behind it but a North Korean terrorist cell but this also makes for a memorably savage villain in Rick Yune's Kang. Most importantly, his motivation has something to with an American land mine and therefore despite his brutality and ultimately devastating master plan, he is a man with an almost understandable grudge against the US of A.

You know what to expect when a film opens with the President sparring in a boxing ring with his trusted secret service man. Olympus Has Fallen is silly, big, loud action fun. It earns its 15 rating with plenty of blood and bone crunching violence, far more satisfying than the recent A Good Day to Die Hard.

Olympus Has Fallen is the Die Hard movie we've been waiting for since Die Hard With a Vengeance. Roland Emmerich's similar White House Down will have its work cut out to match the all out excess and explosive thrills and fun of Olympus Has Fallen. Gerard Butler and director Antoine Fuqua have raised their flag high with this one. Despite the cliches and the villainous stereotypes, Olympus Has Fallen is a throwback to simpler action films of the past and is all the better for it. Fuck yeah.

Do you want to see a Die Hard 6?

A Good Day to Die Hard made a bit of a killing at the international box office despite mostly negative reviews, many critics pretty much despising it. A Good Day to Die Hard managed to make nearly $300 million worldwide according to Box Office Mojo despite earning an extremely rotten 15% over at Rotten Tomatoes. That's over three times its $92 million production budget and therefore Willis' rumour mongering that there will be a Die Hard 6 should likely become a reality.

For fans of the franchise, this is bound to elicit strange and strong mixed feelings, pretty much like the last few films of the series have. Die Hard 4.0 left me dying to go back and watch the original film rather than sitting through this sequel. I loved the original trilogy. Die Hard is the greatest action film of all time for my money. Die Hard 2 might have some problems and inherent silliness but it stuck to what the series knew best; keeping McClane confined, his wife as damsel in distress and having everyone's favourite cop escaping explosions through ridiculous means (ejector seat anyone?)

After the disappointment of Die Hard 4.0 in which McClane had a whole city to play with but unlike in Die Hard with a Vengeance, no Sam Jackson to banter with or schools full of kids under threat, I had low expectations for A Good Day to Die Hard. I wished it all the best as any fan would but didn't get my hopes sky high like I had done for Die Hard 4.0. As a result, I quite enjoyed A Good Day to Die Hard and gave it probably one of the kindest reviews it received.

So now my thoughts turn to Die Hard 6. Do I want to see the action franchise that I was raised on fall further into disrepute? Do I want to see McClane make a wise-cracking, ass kicking comeback? Well obviously I would rather the latter but what if another unwanted (by many) sequel just makes things worse? Willis is balder, grouchier and angrier every time we see him on and off screen. Perhaps it's time he kicked back, put the slippers on and started wearing cardigans and smoking a pipe.

On the other hand, I hope Fox dig deep and find the funds to snag a great director, a great screenplay writer and really make something that works this time. It's got to be personal. It has to have a villain that can top Alan Rickman. It's got to keep McClane cooped up and out of his depth. I want to see McClane cocky and determined but also vulnerable, scared and completely outgunned. Take him out of his comfort zone. Make him beg for his life or for the lives of those he loves. Forget the G.I. Joe invincible action man bullshit. No more computer generated stunts. Do all the action in camera and old school.

Dare I say it, if there has to be a Die Hard 6 then maybe it's time McClane finally died... hard!

What do you think? Will you give Die Hard one more chance?