A Good Day to Die Hard - John McClane is back. In his newest Die Hard adventure, He travels to Russia to help out his seemingly wayward son, Jack, only to discover that Jack is a CIA operative working to prevent a nuclear-weapons heist. The father and son to team up to fight against the hostile underworld forces.
Hello Film lovers
I hope you had a good weekend, to start this week off I will be reviewing the latest Die Hard movie.
SPOILER ALERT: Warning, this review contains spoilers so if you do not wish for the surprises in the film to be ruined by my critical examination, you should read this review a bit later.
Good Day is the fifth adventure in the Die Hard legacy, starring Bruce Willis as action man John McClaine. This film came to the UK and the US on the same day which was the 14th of February 2013, so apparently Valentine's Day was 'A Good Day to Die Hard'.
This film has a lot more to offer than the previous Die Hard's, there's more action, more graphic violence, more heavy action, interesting villains, vibrant setting. It has all the ingredients to be a high tense action thriller which will excite as well as entertain the audience.
Speaking as a Die Hard fan, I loved the first two films, so when I approached this I was aware that things had changed and it was more modern and not as dated as the first two. However I thought 'Good Day' brought the McClaine family together for the audience, it very much focuses on John's relationships with his children which is nice, gives out background and depth to the character. In comparison to the first two films it was about John saving his wife from danger, in 'Good Day' he's going out to Russia to help his son, who shot someone out in Russia.
And at first we as the viewer sense not a very loving and affectionate relationship, we actually get the exact opposite. Jack would rather have John stay out of his business entirely, where as John is the one risking his life to help Jack, and Jack isn't all that grateful. So already there's a fuse, a loose wire between the two of them as Father and Son. But I think that makes things more interesting because if they did get on, it wouldn't be as good, the tension between characters wouldn't be there and the action cliche's wouldn't be that apparent.
The Story is basically about Iconoclastic, take-no-prisoners cop John McClain who for the first time, finds himself in foreign country after travelling
to Moscow to help his son Jack - unaware that Jack is really a
highly-trained CIA operative out to stop a dangerous nuclear weapons heist. With
the Russian underworld in pursuit, and battling a countdown to war, the
two McClain's discover that their opposing methods make them unstoppable
heroes, and as it turns out two McClain's are better than one.
Effect wise, I thought some of the action sequences were a little bit over exaggerated, which in turn didn't make it that believable. You got lots happening in this film you got huge military vechilces crashing into cars, you got cars getting squashed, insane traffic jams, helicopter being shot down, highly exaggerated explosions which together create a massive effect, but also gives the viewer a sense of realisation that what their watching is not real, so as much as I liked the effects, they could of toned things down a bit. I felt that production wise it got a bit carried away with 'we have to make this the biggest Die Hard yet'. It doesn't need that. The first two films accomplished a good story and great effects hand in hand.
The director John Moore obviously wanted to created a drastic drama story, with heavy action to keep all good 'Die Hard' fans happy. I feel he didn't do a bad job, he certainly brought something different to the Die Hard legacy, which I approve of. He was very clean cut with his camera angles, I liked his sense of direction of what should happen when, what I mean by that is when things should be quick they were fast passed. when there was an intimate talk scene, he'd slow things down and allow the tension to built up.
I felt the story could of been better, It wasn't all that fantastic as the first two were. I some how found it difficult to follow the plot on 'Good Day' it lacked that essence of comparative story telling for me, which is a terrible shame.
I failed to understand, why the writers on this film felt the need to drag out all this unneccary humour. I mean the whole 'Im on vaycastion' joke. It worked the first time, but they dragged that joke out completely and after the third time John said it, it just stopped being funny. so don't understand why they had to over exaggerate the humour side of things, I feel the humour could of been toned down.
I thought Bruce Willis, as John McClaine was really good. He played the character as it is. I'm pleased he didn't try to change the character in anyway that would allow me to dislike him. because I do like John McClaine - the character. I think he's a brilliant action man, and an iconic hero in action movies now.
Jai Courtney who played John's son Jack, again really good casting. did a much better job in Die Hard then he did in 'Jack Reacher'.
I also thought the actress who played John's daughter was good, I can't remember the actress's name, but she was good in the bits she was in. I only wish they would of included her in more so I could see more of her, maybe if they make a Die Hard 6 we'll see more on John's relationship with his daughter who knows.
Overall 'A Good Day to Die Hard' is just an 'okay-ish' movie for me. I don't think it stands up as well in comparison to the first two.
I'm going to give it 7/10
1 Gold Star to Bruce Willis
Thank you for reading this review
NEXT TIME : I will review Ang Lee's 'Life of Pi' - I will post that review on Wednesday the 26th of June 2013.