Review of A Good Day to Die Hard

The movie certainly suffers from a lot of issues. That was to be expected. However, unlike Liver Free or Die Hard, A Good Day to Die Hard biggest problem wasn't it's director, it was it's script writer, Skip Woods.

Despite the fact that, pretty much like the last movie, McClane is now a bald James Bond instead of an everyday man in extraordinary situations (which is truly what McClane is all about, not "a rebel who defies authority", like Bruce Willis thinks) the R rating does wonders for the character and it's surroundings. The atmosphere of the movie feels a hell of a lot more at home this time around than it did last time.

Grit and intensity, nowhere to be seen in Die Hard 4, is finally back to some (very welcomed) extent. Action is more down to Earth. Moore is by no means a cinematic genius, but we should thank him for this. He's not anyone's first choice to direct anything in this franchise, but his style is undoubtedly more adequate for Die Hard than Wiseman's (whose take felt septic and artificial).

THE BAD

• Dialogue. Cheesy at times. Stupid at others. And it's a God damn shame, because with some thoughtful corrections, the movie could have been far better. I wish they scrapped the part where Lucy calls him on the cellphone. Stupid.

• Terminator McClane: yes people, he's still the insufferable, indestructible, committed super hero he was in Live Free or Die Hard. Don't misunderstand me: Willis moans and even whimpers sometimes, but it feels artificial. Lacked grit. And there was a point when the character was far off of what he truly is (certain dialog should have been given to Jack instead of John, who is supposed to be very reluctant).

• They don't fully take advantage of the R rating. Which was unintelligent. I mean: if they intended this to be an R rated movie, why not go all the way through and put it on the same level the original trilogy is? Perhaps because they expected to make cuts in certain countries. A shame, because there are a couple of kills that are both memorable and (very) brutal.

• Choppy edits. Remember the clips and special featurettes? The scenes they belong to didn't get much better. That's John Moore for you guys. I like to do my homework which is why I knew this was to be expected. It even says so in his IMDb page; "known for his choppy edits".

HOWEVER, I think they heavily cut certain parts to shorten the movie. You remember certain pictures on set of John and Jack fighting against two guys from the Russian mob? Not in the movie.

THE GOOD

• Over the top? Yes. But not as cheesy, cretinistic and ridiculous as the last movie was. Nothing in here is nearly remotely as corny as McClane surfing a jet. Or a Terminator action figure coincidentally hitting a key to detonate a bomb inside a computer, or McClane being saved by two cars conveniently running on opposite direction of a flying vehicle. Or toll boots magically serving as catapults instead of being simple constructions on flat surfaces.

• The villain: far better, far smarter, far more menacing than Thomas Gabriel. People are talking crap about "OMG YOU NEVER KNOW WHO THE VILLAIN IS!". Are they silly? There IS a clear main villain. However, they broke the Die Hard tradition in the sense that while you know who he clearly was from the start in all the previous movies, here is kind of a plot twist at the last 20 minutes. Still far better and definitely more menacing than Thomas Gabriel. And he actually tries to pull a Hans Grüber! To no success, unfortunately... (You'll understand when you see).

• Climatic, at least. Live Free or Die Hard villain death was pretty "meh", gray and boring. Here the delivery is much better. And the kill was brutal. (Both of them).

• The action felt more down to Earth.

• While the true John McClane is still nowhere to be seen (perhaps Willis doesn't have it any more) at least the ghost of him was present in this movie.

THE FUNNY

Cole Hauser. What the hell???

CONCLUSIONS

Can this be considered a worthy successor to the original trilogy? No. But at least is not as alienated to the Die Hard "feeling" as Live Free or Die Hard was. A Good Day to Die Hard is the half-witted brother of the original trilogy, and that dim familiarity makes it enjoyable. It's a guilty pleasure. If Die Hard 1 is Rocky, and Die Hard 2 and 3 are Rocky 2, this movie is the Rocky 4 of the franchise. (Live Free or Die Hard wasn't anything at all).

And it's a bloody shame, because I feel critics are mostly tearing this apart for being the fifth part of a franchise whose most recent take we saw recently. They are being overly sarcastic dicks like they were with Die Hard 3, which is far, far better than Live Free or Die Hard. And that happened simply because the previous movies were too close.

if Live Free or Die Hard was released today, it would have gotten all the bad reputation this movie is having. Period.