Now Playing

A look at the new movie I saw this week.


A Good Day to Die Hard
Starring: Bruce Willis, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Jai Courtney
Synopsis: Twenty-five years ago audiences were introduced to one of the greatest action stars of all time. John McClane, as given voice by Bruce Willis, was an every man New York City cop who happened to be in the right place at the wrong time. In an age of simple action films, “Die Hard” mixed quality action sequences, humor and characters that resonated with audiences. John McClane was, above all else, a family man. He did everything he could to save his family while doing his duty. That same formula came into play in the 1990 follow up, then in 1995 “Die Hard With a Vengeance” tweaked the formula but the bones of the formula remained in place. In 2007, when the fourth installment of the franchise came out, the genre had changed — and so had “Die Hard.” Many were critical of the lavish — and unbelievable — effects sequences, the plot and the fact that the film was watered down to receive a PG-13 rating. On Valentine’s Day, the “Die Hard” franchise creaked forward again — this time with a father-son buddy comedy set in Russia. “A Good Day to Die Hard” may still draw fans — and may still have taken the top spot at the Box Office — but it’s hardly the same franchise that began 25 years earlier. In some ways, “A Good Day to Die Hard” feels like a plot right out of the 1980s. Some Americans are fighting Russians over nuclear weapons at Chernobyl. In other ways, it feels a lot like the current action movie trend — big on effects, gun play and chase sequences, but short on character. By now, McClane is an iconic action movie character, and Willis still seems at home bringing him to life. But there’s not a lot to do here. The script is full of clichés and the character of his son, Jack (Courtney), is woefully under developed. The film is one of the shortest “Die Hard” films — clocking in at 97 minutes — but it feels tedious at times. At its best, “Die Hard” is a franchise that has had witty dialogue and some memorable villains. Alan Rickman in the original and Jeremy Irons in the third installment were formidable foes for John McClane, but in this film the villains are as two-dimensional as McClane’s own son. The plot — if you can call it that — feels like a loose story concept available to string together gun fights, car chases and big action set pieces. Director John Moore (“Behind Enemy Lines,” “Max Payne”) seems to have a knack for filming the big action sequences, but there is little else of note in the film. And, as with the last installment, the bounds of believability are stretched incredibly. What always made “Die Hard” a fascinating film was the simplicity of the characters and the action. It felt believable. McClane was a determined cop who used his guile to his advantage. Fast forward 25 years and he’s more like a super soldier, firing machine guns, jumping off buildings and blowing up helicopters. While that might appeal to some of today’s movie goers, it doesn’t feel like it’s in keeping with the spirit of what made “Die Hard” an iconic film for fans.
Rating: R for violence and language. Enter with caution.
Verdict: Two stars out of four.

Upcoming Releases:

Friday, February 22 — "Snitch," "Dark Skies"