A Good Day to Stop Making Die Hard.

Die Hard. We’ve all seen it and we all love it like Romanians love to put horses in lasagnes. There is no need for a mass debate, Die Hard is the greatest action movie of all time. It’s also the greatest Christmas movie of all time. It is a multi-purpose movie, suitable for all occasions. You are bored, what do you watch? Die Hard! You are feeling down, what do you watch? Die Hard! You find out your girlfriend/boyfriend has never seen Die Hard? Die Hard! Those clinic results are positive? Die Hard!

The same cannot be said of its sequels. The order of quality is thus: 1, 3, 2, 4. There is reason to disregard Die Hard 4 (or Live Free or Die Hard or Die Hard 4.0) as part of the canon; the John McClane established in the first three films would never jump onto a flying jet. With Die Hard 4 drawing a line between 20th and 21^st century Die Hards could we really expect the fifth entry, A Good Day to Die Hard, to rival the first three films? No. In fact my expectations were so low that it would have been a miracle if it could rival Die Hard 4.

If there’s one thing A Good Day to Die Hard tells us, it’s that miracles don’t happen, unless they involve breaking the laws of physics. Die Hard 5 makes Die Hard 4 look like Die Hard. Quite simply, it’s fucking awful. From the moment we see the opening credit of “Written by Skip Woods” we know that we will not be witnessing a beautifully crafted script. Skip is not a writer’s name, it is a pet’s name. Did you read that new book by Skip Bronte? NO. It gets worse because he is the man responsible for writing Hitman. Director John Moore is responsible for unleashing Max Payne into our lives. Die Hard 5 is a video game adaptation of a video game that does not exist. It has more in common with Call of Duty than it does with Die Hard. Big guns, big explosions, faceless villains, and a political conspiracy that leaves more plot holes than bullet holes. If anyone ever thinks “Gee Whiz it would be neat if they made a Call of Duty film” this crock of shit should be shoved in their face immediately. This is a film for the COD generation: socially inept pubescent teenagers with anger issues who are only stimulated by LOUD NOISES and BIG EXPLOSIONS (and bad ladies in catsuits).

Without a comprehensible plot, discernible villain, or convincing protagonists the result is just a slide show of fiery bangs. Characters are introduced and discarded like used condoms, we are shown the now clichéd Bourne-esque CIA agent automatons at the beginning of the film only for them to never appear or be mentioned again, while the myriad of “bad guys” take turns at playing Hans Gruber. Bruce Willis is no longer John McClane but just an old bloke with a gun and a penchant for falling through things with his two dimensional son. There are homages to the first film and while some are a nice touch (McClane’s instinct to “shoot the glass”) others feel almost spoof-like while the obligatory “yippee ki-yay mother fu...*mumble*” appears like it was forced into the film at random. While perhaps a more conscious effort to make it more “Die Hard” than number 4 these moments do not save the film from its dire script and general shiteness.

Perhaps more appalling than a disregard for GOOD WRITING is the disregard for PHYSICS. During the course of the film both McClanes must/choose to drive from Moscow to Chernobyl. They steal a car full of guns, why is the car full of guns? Because their owners put them in there to enter a club. It is night time, it must be reasonably late because I assume Russian gangsters don’t go to the club straight after Pointless. When they arrive at Chernobyl it is still dark and presumably the same night as neither McClane have had time to wash their faces. As Google maps shows, Chernobyl is roughly 1000km away from Moscow and would take roughly 12 hours to travel. So what average speed must they have been travelling at to arrive in the same night? As we all know speed = distance / time, and even if we are to believe that the journey took them five hours they would have to travel at an average speed of at least 122.8 mph, including crossing the Ukraine border with a boot full of weapons. IS THIS POSSIBLE?

Pedantry this may be, but there was no real reason to relocate to Chernobyl. If any action film is proof that one setting is sufficient it is DIE HARD. All that long arse drives does is kill any tension that the film had. Did Hans Gruber give McClane time to embark on an uneventful road trip? They didn’t even have to go there anyway! The entire film is ridiculous! A lame by-the-numbers action blockbuster with a lazy garnish of Die Hard hallmarks on the side. It may still attract enough of the Fast and the Furious audience to be a success and warrant a sixth instalment but it’s a disgusting spit in the face of its predecessors.