Five things redeeming 'A Good Day to Die Hard'.




Upon emmerging from Coventry's Odeon after viewing the latest instalment in the Die Hard franchise I overheard an irritating man trying to impress his date with his observations about the film. 'That was dire. You could have fallen asleep and understood the plot. The twists were stupid'. Following on from this, I have just read the review on Roger Eberts wesbite (here) where the stand-in critic Richard Roeper just details his increduity that a cop like John McClane could 'fend off four major acts of terrorism over the last 25 years' without being offered a comfortable retirement. I do not think these people understand what Die Hard is all about - indeed what it has been about since the late 80s. Die Hard is here to offer a glug of high octane entertainment disperesed with some flashes of human emotion and a few titilating one-liners. Granted this is a far cry from the quality of the 1988 original whose main appeal was the suspenseful premise of the hero being trapped and entirely isolated with a unit of highly organised terrorists. Back in '88 John McClane offered a more human, vulnerable and mortal interpretation of the action hero compared to the Schwarzeneggers and Sly Stallones of Hollywood. Despite these lofty roots, this latest offering is not the disaster critics are making it out to be - heres 5 things the Amateur Prophet liked about it:

[1] It entertained from start to finish
Do I really need a plausible reason for all the mayhem? Am I going to complain if 70% of the film is high speed pursuits and shootouts? No, not at all. I'm going to sit back in my seat and witness what $92,000,000 worth of explosives looks like and I'll have a good time doing it.

^^ Let me know if you get the joke ;)

  [2] Interesting Plot Twists
I actually found the numerous surprise betrayals and shifts towards who the bad guys are quite interesting. They were - for the most part - unexpected and created an enjoyable cautious atmosphere. No - the villains have nowhere as much panache or venom as Rickman's Hans Gruber but they are enough to be entertaining.


[3Great action set pieces
From the awesome car chase across a busy Moscow at the film's open to the Helicopter action at the end, this film delivers on the big action set-piece front. Does it matter that some of the scenes are improbable as some critics have suggested? Not at all... Just sit back and enjoy the mayhem. Who cares if real humans couldn't survive this stuff - it's a film!


[4Bruce Willis still kicks ass
I can't lie - when my girlfriend told me she found the aged Bruce Willis attractive I felt myself grinding my teeth in screen 3 of the Coventry Odeon. However, there is no denying that Willis has not lost any of the charm and intrigue. Even though he may be some 20 years older than when he first stepped foot in the Nakatomi Plaza building, Bruce is just as convincing as the gun wielding John McClane as he ever was.


[5] Lack of good movies at the Cinema
Everyone has seen Django now. To me Lincoln and Les Mis hit similar cinematic requirements. There is nothing really at the cinema currently to satisfy our needs for a bit of mindless blockbuster entertainment. Die Hard hits the spot where this is concerned. A no-nonsense, uncomplicated war which delivers exactly what it says on its fairly simple tin.



Thought the movie was awful like everybody else?! Let me know in a comment.


No comments:

Post a Comment

We'd love to hear what you think!