A Good Day To Die Hard (John Moore, 2013)

[swo17]

It could just be me, but Bruce seems to be on auto-pilot these days.

I thought most people considered him to have something of a banner year last year, if not quite at McConaughey levels.

[flyonthewall2983]

I've yet to see either Looper and Moonrise Kingdom, though.

[matrixschmatrix]

Yeah, I think Looper and Moonrise Kingdom are very much the exceptions rather than the rule- before that, what was the last thing Willis was even vaguely good in, Planet Terror?

[swo17]

I just hope my wife is a little more lenient than that when she sees what I got her for Valentine's Day today--"Yes, that's a nice big shiny rock but I still feel like you were phoning it in the last few years before this."

[Zot!]

Does Bruce Willis ever play anyone other than Bruce Willis? He seems to be pretty consistent. You either like him or you don't. I think I actually warmed to him first in Pulp Fiction.

[knives]

He plays a variety of Bruce Willises (Willi; what's the plural here) though they can all be traced to the same genus like any star from time's start.

[matrixschmatrix]

There's a lot of shades of Bruce Willis- he's not really the same guy in 12 Monkeys as in Pulp Fiction as in Moonrise Kingdom as in Die Hard, though all those performances repeat and blend throughout his career and share a lot of characteristics. He's definitely one of those actors who are like the old Hollywood ideas of a star where they have a defined type that they can play to or against, but which always informs everything they do.

[Brian C]

Yeah, I think Looper and Moonrise Kingdom are very much the exceptions rather than the rule- before that, what was the last thing Willis was even vaguely good in, Planet Terror?

It slightly pre-dates Grindhouse, but 16 Blocks has a pretty decent Willis performance. That would be my nomination.

[Zot!]

His Moonrise Kingdom role is still the same world-weary reluctant hero he plays in every movie. Schwarzenegger, Stallone, or Cruise have demonstrated more range. Not that I have a problem with that. I just don't see last year being any more or less artistically successful for Bruno. He's reliable.

[Brian C]

I honestly never thought I'd see the day where someone would lament Bruce Willis's range as an actor and then present Schwarzenegger of all people as a superior alternative.

[Murdoch]

[Zot!]

Terminator vs. Twins. It's different. I'm not saying it's successful, but it's different. Willis, perhaps wisely, never made an effort to stretch. I am not lamenting.

[Brian C]

See, I'm barely old enough to remember people being skeptical of Willis as an action hero because of his time on Moonlighting.

[knives]

Die Hard is pretty distinct from that sitcom he was on.

[flyonthewall2983]

See, I'm barely old enough to remember people being skeptical of Willis as an action hero because of his time on Moonlighting.

People were even skeptical once they saw Die Hard because he was running away more than being a killing machine.

[Zot!]

You guys are right, I forgot Moonlighting. That was his stretch right there, but I guess he never really went back to that after he got comfortable.

[cdnchris]

I have to agree with the previous "auto-pilot" comment and I think you can tell when Willis is phoning it in or whether he actually cares about the material even if his performances are limited in range. I forgot about 16 Blocks (which is an OK film) but most of his performances have been really just phoning in the usual Willis persona the last few years, completely detached from the material and I get the feeling he's doing it for the paycheck.

I'm not sure how to put it and I'm going to try my best but he's good when it appears he actually cares about what he's doing because he looks to become more engaged in the material and isn't just Bruce Willis strolling through being Bruce Willis, even if he is still doing a variation of the Willis persona. I got that idea from Moonrise and Looper and thought he was great in both. But I guess the difference is that it actually feels like he is genuinely a part of the film and engaging himself in what's going on within it.

[Brian C]

You guys are right, I forgot Moonlighting. That was his stretch right there, but I guess he never really went back to that after he got comfortable.

Again, I hardly know what to say, especially if your standard for a stretch is Arnold in Twins.

Bonfire of the Vanities, Death Becomes Her, Color of Night, Pulp Fiction, Nobody's Fool, Twelve Monkeys, The Sixth Sense, The Story of Us, The Kid, Unbreakable, Bandits, Alpha Dog, What Just Happened, Moonrise Kingdom, Looper ...

That's not, for the most part, an exceptionally fantastic list of movies (to say the least). But there's a lot of diversity in the roles he's taken on through the years.

[Zot!]

Okay, sorry. I haven't seen all of those films, so I'll take your word for it. From what I have seen, I see precious little variation on his stock persona, to the point where it stuck out to me. I'll accept that I'm wrong. I used Arnold only as an example of someone who is working with the severe handicap of physically and vocally being impossible to seperate from his image (also not actually being an actor). Taking that into consideration, in comparison, I still feel that Mr. Willis doesn't inhabit a broad range of roles. Whether that diminishes his talents, I don't know.

[warren oates]

Now that Brian C mentions it, Unbreakable is one of the more underrated Willis films/performances. I much prefer it to the other M. Night he did. It's like a much less rah-rah heroic version of his Die Hard character. A second-rate absolutely anti-badass cop-type guy just trying to get through life accidentally discovers he's called to be a hero.

[captveg]

There's a lot of shades of Bruce Willis- he's not really the same guy in 12 Monkeys as in Pulp Fiction as in Moonrise Kingdom as in Die Hard, though all those performances repeat and blend throughout his career and share a lot of characteristics. He's definitely one of those actors who are like the old Hollywood ideas of a star where they have a defined type that they can play to or against, but which always informs everything they do.

Agreed. I've always seen him as second-level William Holden type.

[captveg]

The series finally derails completely in this fifth and thoroughly forgettable film. While the other sequels were a step below the original for various reasons, they each understood their main character and worked to establish a building momentum for his escalated motivation and for larger and larger action. Now we get no basis of what is going on to motivate anyone here; McClane jumps into action with almost zero motive, and nothing works whatsoever. A good day to let the series die.... period. 3/10

[cdnchris]

Ended up taking my father-in-law to see this for his birthday. I think this could have been "OK" in more capable hands as all of the ingredients are there for a Die Hard film including

Spoiler

the fact it turns out the evil scheme is just another over-complicated heist

and there is some promise.

But the direction is sloppy (that car chase was near-impossible to follow), Willis is again just phoning it in with the most random placement of one-liners, there is never a real sense of danger or any reason to care since we're basically just thrown into the film, and the film barely gets itself settled in before it hits the climax (it's only 90-minutes!) The villain sucks, which is the biggest sin for a Die Hard flick. And, not surprisingly, the whole father-son thing was of no use to the film. Also, the film feels like it suffers from reshoots and heavy editing, specifically that opening where McClane first tracks down his son. It was easily one of the most awkward sequences I've seen in a film. It felt like the whole scene was an afterthought filling in for something else that has been removed.

The only good thing I could say about the film is that there were the inklings of some decent action scenes that didn't rely entirely on CGI (the worst action sequences were nothing but CGI) but they're so ineptly shot and edited the effect is lost. As a straight-to-video action flick it might have been impressive but as a Die Hard film it was shit.

[feihong]

Maybe the whole notion of a "Die Hard" film is a little less relevant these days? The previews and street art for this movie come off really inconsequential.

[RossyG]

It's got to be the least anticipated instalment.

"Remember that pointless sequel from 2007 you hated? Well, here's another."