There were about 20 people in the theater. One of them left around 20 minutes in and never came back. That being said, this was one matinee. By all accounts DH5 will top the weekend box office. And the good people at Fox will think they did everything right because money. (Sigh...)
Okay, to be completist, I need to write about this one, but it's just been released and I detest spoilers. So I'm going to be vague about the plot. I suspect, however, if you go see it, you'll be amazed at how little more there is to tell. A few key words and phrases, a reveal here and there, but not much more. Here's goes.
Some high-level Russian politician goes to see an aging prisoner who is set to testify in a major court case. The politician says something like, "You give me the file and I'll give you back your life." And the prisoner tells him he doesn't really care about his life. The politician says he'll never let him testify, and none of this makes any sense yet. You just kind of go along thinking, "They'll tell us at some point." Then a young guy goes into a Russian nightclub, commits an obvious and publicly visible crime that he's arrested for. We know from the trailers that he's Jack McClane.
In New York, John McClane (who's still an excellent shot after all these years on the force) gets the news that his son has been arrested in Russia. John looks weary, crestfallen. Maybe this is heartbreak for his son, who we're told grew up a troubled problem child, always getting in his own way. His generic cop buddy from the NYPD gives him the whole scoop on Jack's arrest and when his hearing will be. John plans to take his vacation time to go to Russia to try and help Jack out. Generic NYPD guy warns John that they do things differently in Russia. John's response? "Yeah, me too." (Really? You've been to Russia and you know you do things differently there? Okay, whatever.)
So John gets a ride to the airport from Lucy. (Always nice to see her.) Here's what she looks like driving him to the airport.
"Dad, try not to make and even bigger mess of this." |
"You're only making it worse." |
Meanwhile this nice, young woman...
"Zzzzzzziiiippp." |
Okay, so they wrecked the city and Jack's mad that John is there, but at least they made it to the safe house. End of Act 1. John finally figures out that Jack is in the CIA. They want the Russian alone because he has a file full of evidence that will help them with whatever job they've been working on. John's relieved and here comes the only reference to Holly since the end of DH3... "Your mom, will be relieved. She and I thought it was drugs." Okay, this is key because it tells us that 1) Holly is still alive in the world of Die Hard and 2) she and John occasionally talk about the kids. But then the safe house stops being safe and they have to flee.
On the street, Jack tells John (whom he doesn't want there) to babysit the most important prisoner in all of Russia while he goes to check if the coast is clear. This allows the most important prisoner in all of Russia to have a father-to-father talk with John about how it's never too late to make things right with your kids. He has a daughter, so he knows. (Any guesses who the daughter is? If you guessed the only important female character in all of Russia, you, too could run a studio.)
NOTE: Service elevators don't play "Girl From Ipanema." Only cliche movie elevators do. |
So, to move on to the title of this post, here are the five things wrong with Die Hard 5.
1) The credit "A John Moore Film" - This is the first of his movies I've ever seen, so I'm not going to go down the road of critiquing his body of work. My beef with this is that it I got the sense that it actually was a John Moore film. When you take the reins of the latest installment of a franchise, you don't get the luxury of "putting your stamp on it." Your job is to step out of the way so much that you become invisible, like a runway model whose job is to make you see the clothes, and let the essential truth of the franchise be your North Star. If you have Die Hard or Star Wars or Star Trek or any such name in the title of your film, it's not YOUR film. It's a film you got to direct. It's a ship you are must steer straight. It's not yours to plot a new course. Nobody cares about seeing "Your Die Hard," John Moore. We want to see Die Hard, plain, simple and clean. (To be fair, though, for all I know John Moore fought tooth and nail to make it more Die Hard and less him. I guess we'll never know.)
2) John McClane isn't in it - From the moment we see him, John is quiet, sullen, morose, weary. He looks old, barely awake. Never do we see what made Bruce Willis everybody's favorite action guy for a good decade or more - his natural sense of humor. He was more John McClane in Moonrise Kingdom than he was here.
3) Holly - Don't reference her if it's going to be empty. There's a moment at the end for, in any and all true life circumstances, Holly would have been present. Her absence was as glaring as the freeze frame (!) before the final fade out. Ironically, it makes her the absentee parent.
4) Isolation - Nothing had any effect on the actual world around it. By that, I mean the mega-destrcutive car chase in Act 1, the destruction of the downtown hotel, the eventual climatic battle in a remote location - all of it is done in complete isolation, far from all the civilians and authorities that would want to get in the way. It makes the entire exercise achingly generic.
5) Scale - This is a very small flick. Die Hard was an event. They treated it like an event even before they knew what a crowd-pleasing hit it would be. That sense of importance, the feeling that his is one of Fox's flagship titles. But this film feels like a B-movie at best, dumped in February on as many small screens as possible. Nobody seems to care what an opportunity this was. Instead, they churned out a product that will not be long remembered.
This begs the question that got me blogging about this in the first place. Can Die Hard be rescued? I do believe it can, if done carefully. It's not enough to drop in an Ode to Joy ringtone or snippets of Michael Kamen's original score here and there. You need a writer who remembers what made it great and a director who wants to honor what came before and a studio exec who understands what all this means. My fear is that nobody in the position to make that happen really thinks it's necessary.
Okay, I'm done with this thing. It's bringing out too much negativity in me. Next time I'll start with something I'm genuinely excited about.
- OO
No comments:
Post a Comment