A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) Review

I think that the Die Hard franchise is one of the most expensive franchises ever. Bruce Willis is back as John McClane, from the old Die Hard series that started it all in 1988. Back then, Bruce Willis was just starting into the Hollywood life and now he's become one of the most seasoned actors there. It's not hard to believe, since Bruce Willis truly proved his capacity for megalithic acting in ArmageddonDuring our experience with the other four Die Hards, we're pretty much confronted with a similar farfetched simple plot with little identifiable trends similar to the other Die Hards.With all the explosions, the stunts, and the fast-pace drama, I notice a powerful attention to the speed and quickness of filming rather than a detail to the plot. Although there isn't much uniqueness in the way of action movies, I feel as though this movie could be in direct competition to the previous Jason Statham Parker (2013) movie I reviewed earlier. The reason I make this relation is that the editing, the cinematography and the overall action sequences are similar and unremarkable.

Here is perhaps a great summary of the plot provided by The Telegraph:

Our hero arrives in Moscow to hunt for his estranged son Jack (Jai Courtney), and their relationship must be in dire straits indeed, because he was barely mentioned in any of the previous Die Hard films. McClane suspects he may have become a drug dealer, but it transpires he is in fact working undercover for the CIA, and Dad blunders in on him mid-mission. Jack is smuggling a dissident (Sebastian Koch) out of prison so he can unearth some files needed for a major corruption trial. and soon enough, two generations of McClanes are being chased around town by an angry oligarch and his private army.

Seems pretty good, right? Wrong, some of the sequences are so ridiculous that you're kind of lost from the start to the beginning, the action is very distracting to the plot and the length of the action sequences aren't really creative, like in Parker (2013). I think that there's a powerful nostalgia that comes with a movie like this, seeing Bruce Willis growing up with the franchise makes us think that the movie is really worth watching. I've always found that Hollywood relies heavily on franchises to ensure greater box office success, but this dependency is kind of detrimental.

There are lots that we have yet to explore, complex moral and psychological issues that are evidently ignored in favor of these fast-paced, quick-fix hollywood movies. Wanting to pay special attention to the level of violence and concerned that this wouldn't be rated in favor of it, the directors sought after a 12A violent rating level: just enough to ensure greater audience numbers. It's all strategic, really, because it's the action that we're watching and not really the plot.

comments powered by Disqus