A Good Day to Die Hard? That’s not my title, that’s the actual title of the next Die Hard sequel. Sure they could just call it Die Hard 5 or Die Hardererer, but this is dumber.
Why should you look forward to A Good Day to Die Hard? It comes to you from the writer of Wolverine, Hitman (the movie not the game) and the A-Team. All three of those movies were horrible failures. But he did Swordfish ten years ago. And it comes from the director of Behind Enemy Lines, Flight of the Phoenix and Max Payne. Those are at least better movies than Wolverine and Hitman.
But that’s not the problem with A Good Day to Die Hard.
Do you know who John McClane is? He’s a cop. Ordinary guy who somehow stumbles into extraordinary situations and stumbles through them while running with bloody feet and cursing. That is what made Die Hard work. Then John McClane got jammed into an adaptation of a novel that wasn’t about him, but it still worked a bit. Then he got dumped into a buddy cop movie in the middle of New York City. That didn’t work that great, but it sorta worked. All of those movies were on some level still grounded in the ordinary nature of John McClane, who can kill a dozen bad guys, but does it by the skin of his teeth and never intended to dive into this.
All that came to a complete end with Live Free or Die Hard. It’s coming to a bigger end with A Good Day to Die Hard which is set in Russia. Yes Russia. Because when you think of John McClane, you think of Russia.
Now A Good Day to Die Hard is very obviously borrowing from Taken. But it’s actually worse than that.
Q. What can you say about the story?
A. McClane and Jack are very estranged, but like any parent it doesn’t matter how estranged you are from your kid, you still feel for them. He discovers that Jack is in trouble in Moscow and he goes to try to help, but he’s got the wrong end of the stick. Jack is not the person he thought he was and he’s mixed up in some very serious international business, and John finds himself in the eye of the storm. He finds himself in a situation that he, at first, screws up for Jack, but ultimately finds himself in a position where he helps Jack put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Q. Fox chairman Tom Rothman said that Jack was more badass than John. Is that fair to say?
A. I think it’s probably fair to say that what was accidental in McClane Sr., coming face-to-face with international turmoil and bad guys who stay up late at night coming up with very clever stuff, is very much much a career choice for Jack McClane.
So get this FOX is making a Die Hard movie that’s about John McClane’s son being a superspy whose goal seems to be to turn the Die Hard franchise into a Bourne franchise starring McClane’s Australia son. FOX couldn’t have done a better job of missing the entire appeal of Die Hard if it had set a bunch of giraffes on fire and filmed it as a romantic comedy.
I don’t know about you, but what I really wanted was not just a Die Hard sequel, but a Die Hard sequel in which we discover that John McClane’s son is Bourne.
It’s obvious how this horror was born. Studio executive looks at Bourne and at Taken, two top action movie franchises. Then he decides to marry them and graft them onto an existing IP. Mission Accomplished.
This is a different kind of fix. This is for people who get a kick out of the Bourne movies.
So says John Moore. But easy question, why not just make a Bourne movie? Because FOX doesn’t have a Bourne IP available. They do have Die Hard.
This is why Die Hard should have died long ago.