TheReviewAwakens

Nearly 10 years since its release, Lets take a look at one of the worst-reviewed action sequels in history, John Moore’s mighty A Good Day To Die Hard.

I challenge you to find one positive review of A Good Day to Die Hard because the chances are that you will not be able to find or read a single one. For a film that was bashed so badly, is it time we gave it another shot? or a re-look for action audiences.

A Good Day to Die Hard has one unique USP, which is the father/son dynamic, take a peak.

A Good Day to Die Hard was the fifth installment in the series and before we get this re-look and analysis out of the way, how many good fifth installments have there been in film franchises and series? only a handful, right.

This film was bashed heavily by critics and even Die Hard fans calling it to be the worst one and some even saying it had been the worst action sequel of the 2010’s, but my question is the film really that bad? does this film really deserve all the hate, how can a film with this budget and cast be so terrible if true, this is where the fun part comes into picture.

On the whole, It’s ultimately very rare in Hollywood for there to be a good fifth film in a series, so before John Moore signed on to the project, perhaps he was doomed before he got the camera rolling. For a series like this, it’s especially difficult to come up with something new and original, especially with franchise developing in the action genre and this is a really important point.

Some notable good fifth installments are Rogue Nation, Fast Five, Harry Potter, Bond and Empire Strikes Back, I wonder where Die Hard fits into this mix, probably somewhere near the bottom but lets analyse this further.

A more realistic and notable comparison could be 2015’s Terminator Genesis which also starred the doomed Jai Courtney, both are examples of what I call franchise milking, but for the sake of this discussion I will putting A Good Day to Die Hard in industry context.

Perhaps, the Die Hard series was never meant and designed to go on for long as it has done, there is only so much you can do with the character and premise. The Fast franchise has gone on, not because of narrative purpose but that of financial reasons, in my eyes. Show a bunch of fast cars racing and crashing into each other, with Dom saying family and now you have your movie. Every Die Hard film needs to do something different and lets be honest each Die Hard film differs in plot situation. Die Hard 2 is similar to Die Hard, but Die Hard 3 and 4 are very different, even with the tone and direction.

For this fifth film, it attempts to shake the Die Hard formula up a tad, by taking us to a new location, that of Moscow with a different premise. This time, John Mcclane teams up with his son Jack and the two have to work together.

It’s the only Die Hard film to make the most of its location as if it is its own character, arriving in the promiscuous Russia and that’s where the problems start for A Good day to Die Hard. We get shots of statues and the city life throughout, it seems to be an odd place for John Mcclane to travel to.

The fact that the film was set in Russia, it lost that claustrophic sense of Die Hard, in fact the plot and location best suits a Bond film to which the director has admitted before in interviews.

In a picture full of ridiculous action scenes, but how is John Moore’s film direction this time around. Upon directing the flawed Max Payne and Behind Enemy Lines, the direction could be seen as sloppy but he had a tough job on his hands. Like I said, the film was the fifth Die Hard in the series.

However, to give the film some credit that big scope look was an attempt to freshen the Die Hard concept up, John Moore changes the concept for the fifth installment and can you really blame him?

Let’s look at the film’s cinematography and action scenes, as both may be the films more positive elements or negative depending on how you look at it. For a start, the film was shot in Moscow, and do we get some interesting long and wide shots of the city in its glory to some extent.

In a picture full of ridiculous action scenes and solid direction in the previous Die Hard films, how is John Moore’s film direction this time around? Upon directing the flawed Max Payne and Behind Enemy Lines according to pretty much every film critic out there, the direction this time could be seen as sloppy in a few moments. In this Die Hard film, I really struggled to follow the rational progression of the films plot, we jump around Moscow in quick succession, never once taking a long and lengthy stop where John and Jack’s relationship doesn’t seem to flourish, in fact we never have time to.

The film has great size and scope but looses that classic contained Die Hard setting that we have come accustomed to at this point. That big scope look was an attempt to freshen the Die Hard concept up, but here is where we have a positive. John Moore changes the concept for the fifth installment and can you really blame him?

Despite all of the films negative feedback, it became the series third highest grossing film in the series, which is rather impressive for a fifth installment. The film keeps the franchise going at a rather lame pace, but our love for the character remains strong, with a budget of 92 million and a box office of 304.7 million worldwide, a fairly handsome financial summary for a fifth installment, the film must have done something right for Die Hard audiences.

Bruce Willis specifically chose John Moore to direct this film and I am guessing he probably could have chosen anyone in the action field. The writer is Skip Woods, who latest work includes Hitman: Agent 47 and others Sabotage, The A Team, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and more.

One of the benefits of the film and especially with the character of John Mcclane character is that this time we get to see a different side to him, the film shows him as more of a father figure than in any of the other Die Hard films.

A Good Day to Die Hard is’nt a film for critics, its a film made and designed for action audiences and fans of the John Mcclane character, thats the sweet spot and the film has to be made with the previous law construct established in the other films to make a solid Die Hard film and get its money back.

Fair play to John Moore, the film became the series third highest grossing film in the series after a 6 year wait between Die Hard 4 and Die Hard 5, the fans were hungry for another Mcclane outing and they got one with a runtime of only 1 hour and 30 mins, loosing the retro die hard buildup before the calamity starts.

Upon changing the film directors quite a few times at this point, they chose John Moore whose filmography has’nt quite impressed audiences and critics as of yet, but they still chose him. One would thought that his ability to bring out big action scenes was the reason and this is one of Die Hard’s biggest selling points.

Each film has delivered in explosions and gunplay, its a non obligation and John Moore does deliver this aspect. Here, there is no shortage of chaos and carnage, it gets right to the point of absurdity.

The plot was much more family oriented than in the last few installments, with a witty focus on John’s relationship with his son, Jack, we get a lot more screen time with them both. In most of the die hard films, John Mcclane is usually paired up with a buddy, but this time his buddy comes from a more intelligent and blood oriented background, no disrespect to Samuel L Jackson.

Their chemistry is very on the surface. What I mean by this is that I never felt that the writing allowed us to really understand these two in a developed way, they just made some jokes about each other and exchanged a few witty one liners in between the action. Its still cool to imagine John interacting with his son, Jack, its still a great concept on paper.

For the action, this where you get your money’s worth as a film director when making die hard, the action scenes need to live up to its name and brand. All of the die hard films have had excellent action scenes, but they are usually excellent because they put John Mcclane in unbearable situation of spectacle and he has to improvise his way out.

Most audiences enjoyed or at least appreciated the opening car chase which seems to go on forever and you can tell the production crew invested the most amount of time and money into this scene. It sets the situation between Jai and John in a very chaotic way and some of the car chases and crashes are spectacular, but they don’t seem to fit in a Die Hard film, it just seems out of place.

Take for instance the car chase in Die Hard with a Vengeance, that car chase was a lot more focused and less explosive, resulting in fewer casualties and injuries. A Good day to Die Hard certainly doesn’t lack for subtlety throughout its duration, but there is use of practical action which is always great.

Bruce Willis gives a more tame performance in the series, but his character is still entertaining to watch. Jai Courtney had all of the necessary traits of John Mcclanes son. Physically tough, smart but the only quality missing was his sense of humour, his dry wit and that to me is a large part of the process of the Mcclane brand.

If you are going to cast John Mcclane’s son, he has to be intelligent on par with or more smart than John. Thats a no brainer and Jai comes across as perhaps very one noted but very smart and stubborn, just like his dad and for that the film gets its credit.

The fact that he is built more physically than his dad creates a more vivid competition between the two, I believe. Its just that classic Mcclane wit that I thought he was missing.

A Good day to Die Hard is still the series worst Die Hard film but you do wonder how this film or any action sequel deserves the hate it has received. The film may not be as good as the first or any of the other Die Hard films, but upon putting the film into a bit more context, A Good day to Die Hard can be seen as a mindless entertaining ride with a love for its character, John Mcclane showing us a different element of his persona, which is fatherhood and for that its a different Die Hard experience for fans of the franchise.

When experienced on blu ray on the big screen, A Good day to Die Hard is an absurdly entertaining mindless action film, especially the opening car chase. It’s a roller coaster ride and a fun one for that matter.

You can buy the Die Hard Collection on Steelbook here.

You can catch A Good Day to Die Hard on Amazon Prime UK.

Do you think A Good Day to Die Hard deserves the hate?

Author Bio

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is p7160341.jpg

Sam is a content writer. He loves all elements connected with film and writes with passion, always. You can find him on Linkedin, where you will be able to read more articles. When he is not writing, you can find him practicing football

Patrick Hughes brings old and new guns to a premise consisting of cinema’s most cherished action heroes and villains in The Expendables 3.

With The Expendables 3 still showing on Amazon Prime UK, I thought I would give a quick review of the third installment leading up to the mighty fourth installment with Andy Garcia and Megan Fox, what a strange combo for an Expendables flick.

This third installment was helmed by Hollywood newcomer Patrick Hughes, coming off his debut with Red Hill, he was in charge of steering a cast of action icons onto the screen with a narrative more personal this time around and the end result is at times a jumbled mess, but an entertaining ride with plenty of well-choreographed fight scenes, this time with Banderas, Gibson, Ford, Snipes, and the whole traditional cast as well as a new cast of world champions including Ronda Rousey.

This time around, upon experimenting twice with the tone, this third installment balances drama, comedy, and action fairly well together. There is some great use of comedy with Antonio Bandera’s character, whose backlog of work includes the classic shoot em up Desperado, and the film, in general, gets a lot of each of these characters, with references and winks to some of their best work without overloading us with references and that’s essentially what these films are about, nothing more and nothing less.

The addition of Mel Gibson really adds to the quality of the project as he really is a serious action star whose work has consisted of a lot of oscar material films, of and behind the camera. Only 3 years later he would direct Hacksaw Ridge, a hard hitting war film.

Mel Gibson is easily the best part of the film and perhaps the series best villain. He has the most amount of character development and has a long history with Barney Ross. Other slick additions include Arnie, who gets a lot of screen time in the action scenes, effortlessly blowing bad guys to the face just as he did in the Terminator films.

Mel’s character gets a standout scene in the middle section of the film where he talks to Barney about his experience in The Expendables crew and confesses his hatred towards him, as well as his fight scene with him in the final part of the film, which wasn’t quite as knuckle headed as it was in The Expendables 2 with Van Damme.

The biggest complaint that I have with the film isn’t the addition of the new expendables team or even the 12a rating. The overall cinematography of the film felt very watered down and tame. The final action scene has some thrilling moments, but its visual look mainly consists of a grey filter, which doesn’t exactly scream summer entertainment.

I think this really impacted the film, more so than its streaming release. The film could have used a more bright, colorful, and gritty edge as that could have really sold the action scenes. A similar gripe that I had with The Expendables 2, the overall look didn’t come across as exciting as it could have been. Much of the action scenes take place inside this big damaged building, which is a pretty dark and uninteresting environment.

The films runtime is long and we get a lot more character development than in the previous film, with Kelsey Grammer aiding Stallone in the process of finding new young talent. With this, the standout character is Kellan Lutz who resembles similar qualities to Stallone. Both have similar traits and it was fun to see a character resemble and sometimes challenge Stallone and his values.

That’s where the USP of the film starts, it’s the interaction between the old and new cast, which that dynamic really makes the old cast’s traits stand out. It would be interesting to see how this third film completes the trilogy and adds to the narrative of the films for action audiences.

The questions to ask is does it complete The Expendables narrative in a satisfying manner, does it add something more to the characters and their personas, setting itself nicely for the fourth installment. I’d say yes.

The first half is the most enjoyable part of the film with a really solid opening action scene involving the rescue of Wesley Snipes who looks like he has been absent from the screen in a while, but his presence begins to blossom when he meets his old gang. The actual action scene itself is long and involves car chases, shoot outs, boats and a whole list of fun, with Terry Crews showcasing why he is the king of big weaponry.

The second half mostly consists of the new talent. The new talent are pretty slick and add a sense of purpose to the team, but you tend to loose interest whenever they are on screen, you want to cut back to the old expendables crew because of their star status.

The scene takes place in a different location, with different outfits and enemies. The scene begins to increase in tension where we see Mel Gibson arrive in a helicopter and that’s when we know who the main villain is.

There is also a little more emotion and revenge this time when Terry Crews gets injured, the music and the way the scene is shot gives off a dramatic sense of loss, even though Terry Crews survives the gunplay, but Stallone is ready to fight back but old age seems to be a problem this time around.

However, I still believe that this may be one of Hollywood’s and Lionsgate’s most enjoyable and entertaining action series of the 2010’s. The action is well filmed and has a great sense of heroism attached to it, where you really want these guys to succeed in these epic and practical action scenes of car chases and gunplay. This alongside their banter in bars and planes gives the action that extra dash of charm.

The hand to hand combat scenes are some of the best in today’s industry, with each installment giving us the goods. But, equally the banter and comradery between these stars is always fun to watch and unique as you can’t experience this element in any other action film, making The Expendables a breathe of fresh air in the action genre.

With The Expendables 3, you need to know what you are getting, a big action film with a love for its own cast, providing self aware jokes that sometimes don’t land, with a villain who actually is giving a good performance. Its a real audience picture that ties a nice explosive bow over the action genre.

For a big action film like this with so much talent and screen presences, Patrick Hughes does a pretty solid job of managing a cast this big and making sure that each character has enough screen time to sell their performances. I think its well phrased, especially in the last action scene where each of the characters have their chance to shine and say a few funny one liners. It must be a challenge to balance all of these performances.

I highly recommend watching each of the character’s action films beforehand to get you in the mood to have a laugh seeing all of these legends just talk and fire guns, that’s the film’s sweet spot, purpose, and audience.

The Expendables 3 is best served as a self-aware picture that is a nod to the action genre and its history, if you watch with this in mind you will have a blast.

You can watch The Expendables 3 extended cut on Amazon Prime UK.

TheReviewAwakens

Re-look: A Good Day To Die Hard (2013)

Author Bio

The Expendables 3 Review

Author Bio