Why Hard?

Beat Nick thinks 4.0 sucks. I do too. But I didn't, initially.

There's something about the movie which leaves you with a healthy macho glow as you leave. An aura of awesome that takes a while to dissipate. To be honest, this is mainly because of Willis.

Of course, the reason action movies are so popular is because of this glow. Whereas romantic comedies are designed to tug at the heart strings, action movies tug at something that is, perhaps, a little deeper, something deeply ingrained, the primal instinct of man to be Motherfucking Manly. Basically, a good action movie has to appeal to that deep-down hidden part of us that still wants to hit pretty women over the head with a stick and drag them home.

The problem with Die Hard 4.0 or Live Free and Die Hard or Desperate Attempt By Bruce Willis to have a Successful Movie (whatever you want to call it) is that the glow does not linger for very long at all.

Willis: Clinging on for Dear Life. Metaphor?

In fact, it barely survives the cold walk back from the cinema.

The reason the glow doesn't last is because despite the arm-pumping old-school action achievements of the film, despite the spectacle of it all, despite the fact that, unencumbered by the legacy of the franchise, this would be an okay film, it fails as a Die Hard.

And that sucks.

You see, this is Die Hard number 4. Whatever references they shoe-horn in to the original, that defining action movie of an age, this is more of a sequel to the third film than to the first. And its a sequel that, rather than going back and looking at that first film to see what works, takes into account every other action movie that's gone in between and tries to build on them.

What we need, Len Wiseman is saying, is bigger and better. We need Bruce Willis to kill a helicopter with a car.

No, Len Wiseman. No. This is some of the stuff you need (and, incidentally, some of the stuff that made the first film so damn good) :

1/ Unity of Place


John McClane runs down a corridor and sees some pictures from Playboy. We smirk as, despite everything, despite the terrorists in hot pursuit, he glances distractedly at the pictures.

A little bit later, he is coming down the same corridor. There is a look of recognition on his face. "Girls," he says as he brushes the pictures.

You see, Nakatomi Plaza is an enigma to John McClane at the beginning of this film. Then, as the film progresses, he learns his way around and uses this knowledge against Hans Gruber's squad of eurotrash henchmen. And we, as the audience, learn with him. This is why, when he returns to the model room and glances at a blood stain on the floor, we know this was the site of Takagi's execution.

This is a film not set in a skyscraper. Its set in 3 floors and the roof of a skyscraper. Unity of place. There's a level of tension inherent in the fact that McClane only has so many places to go, so many hiding places and redoubts. He's only got so many options.

Die Hard 4.0, by comparison, is constructed like a video game. There is the level in the Hacker's Apartment, the level in the Underpass, the level in the gas station with the kung-fu Hacker woman boss, the Parkour ice-level boss... and so on. If McClane can go anywhere, if he's not trapped or confined or limited, what has he really got to fear?

2/ John McClane is vulnerable

"Glass? Who gives a shit about glass?"

Yes, its an action film. Yes, we know the guy from Moonlighting is probably not going to die. I mean, just look at the title.

And yet...

On a purely physical level, I can't name another action film which creates such a wince-inducing scene than the feet-glass/glass-feet sequence in Die Hard. Sure, the moment where McClane is actually tugging shards out of his feet is painful but his realisation, when pinned down and in trouble, that he has to run across all that fucking glass is somehow worse.

He's desperate. He's in a tight spot. He gets done in pretty badly but he makes it. By the skin of his teeth he makes it. The sequence encapsulates the whole point of the film.

In Die Hard 4.0, by comparison, the only thing that differentiates McClane from Superman is the lack of a cape.

3/Character Arcs

McClane is emotionally vulnerable, too. There is even *gasp* something of a character arc, simplistic though it may be, where he eventually comes to the conclusion he's been a bit of an ass hole and tells Sergeant Powell, if he dies, tell his wife he's sorry.

Yes, simplistic, but its extremely well acted by Willis. And its another layer to the character.

Holly has an arc, too. You could say its the kiss at the end, the re-acceptance of McClane in the back of that limo. But its not. Its the, "My God," when she sees her husband, staggering towards her, covered in shit and blood and sweat.

Its not subtle. But, suddenly, maybe for the first time, she sees a microcosm of what it means for him to be a policeman. He goes through all this crap to protect other people. Of course she kisses him. I would have fucking kissed him.

Then, of course, there's Sergeant Powell. With a well-timed orchestral swell, he learns to kill again. Glorious. Watching Die Hard again, I noticed how, after shooting Karl, Powell turns his attention to Argyle's limo and McClane has to nudge him and say, "He's with me." After drawing his gun for the first time in however many years, Powell would have capped anyone. I love it.

As for Argyle, even he gets his moment of redemption, thumping that twat of a hacker.

So its not particularly deep or especially clever. But compare it to 4.0. Every single character is a one-note cypher. There is no real development. Bruce Willis just wheels out his hardened quipping Superman routine, Justin Long is, well, Justin Long, McClane's daughter is a pretty feisty heroine in the two minutes screen time she gets and an ill advised Kevin Smith is just Kevin Smith.

4/ A Decent Baddie

I can't stress this enough. Hans Gruber is a fucking awesome bad guy. For one, he actually seems to have a genuine relationship with is henchmen, epitomised by this exchange with Karl:

"Asian Dawn?"
"I read it in Time Magazine."

Moreover, he's one of the only action film villains I can remember who doesn't shoot any of his own men. And he never overly monologues.

The allusion to westerns in Die Hard is pronounced. Gruber is a real adversary to McClane, a dark mirror of his own professionalism and ingenuity. But McClane is just that fraction of a second quicker on the draw.

As for 4.0's bad guy... erm, what was his name again?

5/ Comedy

The comedy in Die Hard is pitch black. Agent Johnson and Special Agent Johnson (assholes the both of them) get blown up in the biggest pyrotechnic display of the film.

The Deputy Police Chief remarks: We're going to need some more FBI guys.

Hans Gruber falls off a roof.

The Deputy Police Chief remarks: I hope that isn't a hostage.

And so on and so forth.

If you're of a certain mindset, even the callous wounding of the SWAT team that attacks the Plaza is a little amusing. I mean, Gruber could have had them killed but he chooses not to. McClane aside, he's that much in control.

Even the perpetual irony of the Christmas setting is a master stroke. At one point or another, it seems everyone hums a Christmas song to themselves.

What has 4.0 got?

Well, "Enough of this kung fu, shit," is good but that's about your lot. Justin Long and Kevin Smith gurning at one another while McClane stands there being Completely Computer Illiterate is just a little flat.

6/ Suspension of Disbelief

A good film sustains a potent suspension of disbelief. Early on, a universe is established which is, throughout, adhered to and maintained. Yes, McClane jumps off a building strapped to a fire hose in Die Hard. But it seems plausible. Its his only choice, after all.

And, as he leaps, McClane says, "Oh John. How the fuck did you get into this shit?"

In 4.0, the best action sequence is the attack on Justin Long's apartment. That exhibited some of John McClane's flair for desperately improvised violence and even had some of the claustrophobia and tension of the close-quarters gun battles in the first.

Then, later, McClane surfs a pilot-less jet, bellowing the sort of noises that seem to indicate, deep down, he thinks he can tame it like a bucking horse.


7/ Die Hard is not for kids

This was the major controversy about the film, of course. And, as my thoughts on Back to the Future's liberal use of the word "shit" may indicate, I do fall into the, "Please let him say the F word" camp.

To be honest, though, I didn't notice it quite so much when I saw the film. I wasn't sitting there wondering why McClane didn't swear anymore. I was too busy wondering how the Asian woman could survive being hit by a truck at full speed.

However, going back, watching the first film... Willis (when he's fighting Karl) has this desperate comedy lilt in his voice which makes, "You motherfucker, I'm gonna kill you! I'm gonna fuckin' cook you, and I'm gonna fuckin' eat you!" sheer poetry.

But with no swearing and no blood and nothing that even approaches the concept of someone getting butt-fucked on national TV... its hard to remember its a Die Hard movie at all.

I mean, the original even has drug abuse and a flash of boobies. And just where the hell was any of that in 4.0?

So, if they really are going to make a fifth one and I really hope (in the same way I hope an act of God puts an end to Indy 4) they don't, here's a message to Willis, Wiseman et al.

Take this under advisement, jerkweeds.

-----

Jachap is back, baby.