Unintentional Badass: How "A Good Day to Die Hard" Fundamentally Misunderstands John McClane

I finally got around to watching A Good Day to Die Hard this weekend, and... ugh. I knew there was trouble afoot as soon as the thing opened -- and I know this is going to sound ridiculous -- and the aspect ratio was 16:9 as opposed to 2.35/2.40:1 like the previous movies had been (that and the ultra-cheesy opening credits titles that screamed '90s TV movie). I mean, there's just something about breaking that tradition that just didn't feel right -- you've gotta try to respect what's come before, right? -- but it was a good indication of the travesty -- TRAVESTY, I say! -- that was to come.

I write all this with full understanding that I'm talking "travesty" here in the sense where I'm offended that a giant corporation 25 or so years ago optioned the rights to and then in league with a director, actor, and huge crew, created an iconic character that I (and many, many others) grew to love (and even name our kids after) and have since then exploited that love to their own financial ends, so, you know, grain of salt and all that.

And the thing we have to start with is the one thing that should always, always work in these movies, which is the Bruce Willis. I never thought I'd say this, but I think it might be time for Bruce to be done with the McClane, at least if he's going to be as uninvolved in the development -- and I use that word loosely; I don't really need McClane to "develop," but I need him to be recognizable as John McClane in more than name only -- of the character as he was in this. I get that, you know, it's a new screenwriter, a new director, etc, but Bruce is the constant to this franchise, and he of all people should know who this McClane guy is by now. And looking back on my review of Live Free or Die Hard, for all that movie's faults -- and there were many -- at least they got McClane right.

So the definition of John McClane is that this is a guy, kind of a fuckup for the most part, who finds himself inadvertently in a boatload of trouble and rises to the occasion, all the while remaining in a state of relative disbelief that this shit is happening to him (again and again and again):

In other news, now I really want to watch Die Harder right this second.Good Day was so bad, it makes DH2 look like a piece of pop genius, when it's really the third best of the five. Really, DH5 was so bad, it makes me want to watch Live Free again and revel in how relatively not bad that one actually was.

My first thought, even as I was watching it, was that rather than study the previous movies, it was like the screenwriter and director got about halfway through the Die Hard wikipedia page, shrugged, and said, "I think I understand this. Let's make a movie!"
So how/why does DH5 go so seriously wrong? Okay, it starts with something that should never be seen: McClane at the firing range, with his partner (?) telling "not bad, grandpa" jokes to establish that John's old but he's still got it. No. Just no. John McClane does not go to the firing range. John McClane, on a good day, wakes up in a crappy little East Bronx apartment somewhere and finishes the beer that's sitting on his bedside table. On a bad day, he's walking out of a bar and squinting his way through the haze. I can totally get behind the "I'm too old for this shit" Murtaugh vibe they were trying for, but there are about 1,000 different ways to demonstrate this without having John doing target practice. And it's just downhill from there. This "McClane" has no doubt. He has no fear. He barrels his 4x4 off an overpass like he KNOWS he's going to be able to drive onto a semi and over a traffic jam of cars without even an "I sure hope I know what I'm doing" crack. All I wanted was one look of self-doubt, one "holy shit, I can't believe I'm doing this" and all would've been well with the world.

Instead, we get John McClane: Terminator and douchebag dad. Seriously, at least three times, he talks about how what McClanes do is kill bad guys, like it's no big thing. And when his sidekick kid is injured, does John show any kind of humanity? No, he just tells the dude to buck up and stop crying like some action movie cliche. At some point I would've thought Willis would've stepped in prior to filming to try to get some of this fixed -- this is the dude who famously got on the phone and asked who the second choice to play John McClane would be at some point during DH4 filming -- but I guess he was just looking for the easy paycheck and a trip to Europe with this outing. Which is sad, because Bruce still does good work -- see Looper for an example -- when he wants to. I wish he had given half of his Looper energy to this, his signature role.

I really could go on and on about the many ways this movie just goes wrong -- from the slo-mo action to the color palette chosen to the sickly sweet orchestral overlay while John and family walk off into the sunset at the end, or even the half-baked homage/rip-off of this great moment:

Not. Allowed. This is sacrosanct!

Already I've probably spent more time thinking about how to make this movie more of a Die Hard flick than the filmmakers apparently did. (And yes, I have a pitch for DH6, not that this should ever happen. I am finally ready for there to be no more Die Hards, and, like the Indiana Jones series, to tell my children -- when it comes time for them to watch these, and oh, man, I can't wait for that glorious, glorious day -- that there are only three in the series.)