Just Die Already

The coked-out dipshits who have their God-like hands on the figurative Hollywood "Green Light" love nothing more than a proven formula.

Not only is this to blame for the unforgivable thread of inferior sequels which extends down from any hit film like so many poisonous jellyfish tendrils, but also for the recent steaming pile of shitty movies based on shitty television shows. The trend toward avoiding new ideas like an airline passenger with monkey bites on his arm has become so virulent among Hollywood's big studios in fact, that it's occasionally difficult not to blame a trendsetting movie -- no matter how great -- for the trend that it set.

And yet despite the two average sequels, as well as the legion of laughably inferior copycats, it spawned -- 1988's Die Hard remains one of the greatest and most thoroughly enjoyable action movies ever made.

It was that rare blockbuster that managed to get everything right: it had a simple premise (what the studios now call "high-concept," which is nothing more than an ironically euphemistic way of saying that even the mullet-sporting high school dropout getting stoned in the back row will understand it), it had a tough, funny, thoroughly human hero in John McLane and a standout performance by Bruce Willis, it had Alan Rickman playing a villain who was as fun to watch as he was sadistic, and it had non-stop action from beginning to end. To this day, it's still one of my favorite movies.

In addition to having the kind of name which proves that the most obvious choice isn't necessarily the best, 1990's Die Hard 2: Die Harder managed to look and feel as if director Renny Harlin (whose entire career provides a compelling argument for declaring war on Finland) never actually saw the first movie. Sure, it has Willis, and it has action; what it doesn't have however is fun. On the contrary, Die Harder remains one of the meanest movies in recent memory: at one point, the camera lingers on a plane-load of unsuspecting airline passengers -- paying special attention to a child -- just before the villain kills them all by crashing the plane into the ground. Although there's something to be said for the sheer audacity of the sequence, it automatically robs the audience of any eventual pay-off by creating a vengeful bloodlust that no scene in an R-rated movie could ever fully satisfy; somehow, getting blown-up doesn't seem like a slow and painful enough death for a guy who purposely crashes a plane.

1995's Die Hard with a Vengeance reunited Willis with John McTiernan, the director of the original; it also teamed him up with Samuel L. Jackson, who surprised audiences with his powerful portrayal of a black guy who screams a lot. McTiernan at least made an effort to inject some of that elusive fun back into the proceedings by casting Jeremy Irons as the villain and encouraging him to ham it up. Unfortunately, it's who that villain is that makes the movie unintentionally hysterical in a Scooby-Doobian sort of way: Irons plays the brother of Hans Gruber -- Alan Rickman's character from the original movie. Add to that one of the most glaring oversights in scriptwriting history -- a plot-hole so big that, once realized, it basically shuts down the entire story, allowing everyone involved to go home ten minutes after the opening credits* -- and you've got a recipe for a whole nation's worth of two-star reviews.

Now, twelve years later, comes Live Free or Die Hard.

Right off the bat, the latest movie in the long-since-dead franchise lets you know where it's coming from: Bruce Willis's voter registration card. It takes place in Washington, D.C.; it involves terrorism (albeit of the politically-correct home-grown variety); the teaser trailer makes good use of the American flag and beauty shots of the Capitol; it's being released on July 4th; and of course, it has a name that's either patriotically kick-ass or uncomfortably jingoistic at the moment, depending on your level of outrage at failing to secure Dick Trickle, thereby completing the entire series of Arby's Limited Edition "Legends of NASCAR" Collector's Glasses.**

All that aside though, a quick glance at the most recent trailer would seem to indicate that the new movie might have bigger problems than just its implied politics. The reason is because, whether money-hungry Fox executives choose to accept it or not, the Die Hard series had a limited shelf-life from the start -- the entire concept created its own expiration date. From the get-go, the premise relied on John McClane being in the wrong place at the wrong time; its unique and undeniable charm is derived solely from McClane playing the role of the reluctant hero -- an average guy who's forced into action by circumstance and whose motivation is personal rather than professional. The audience loves him for his courage, wit, vulnerability and because he's human. Try to stretch the idea too thin though and the dilemma becomes clear: there are only so many times (as in two at best) that this one character can believably "stumble" into the middle of a dire situation and become the only hope for good prevailing over evil, yet if you do continue to play this same card, to be believable the character has to evolve into something far more cynical and far less like the guy everyone identified with in the first place.

It looks like they went with Door Number 2.

I admit to having little to go on aside from the early clips, but the John McClane in Live Free or Die Hard seems to barely resemble the wise-ass everyman who, by nature of the concept, was once forced to use his brain as often as his Beretta to save the day. Quite the opposite, the new movie looks like it's going to fit nicely into the growing pantheon of vehicles in which Willis flexes his acting muscle by playing a humorless guy who's confident to the point of being cooly aloof.

You know, Bruce Willis essentially playing Bruce Willis.

Trouble is, that's the furthest thing from John McClane.


(*Early in the film, it's explained that the bombs the villain is using to terrorize New York City work by mixing two liquids which only become explosive when combined; the bombs themselves are made up of two separate plastic canisters, each containing one of the inert elements. Just before a bomb goes off, a valve located at its top combines the two chemicals, then detonates the explosive mixture. Defusing the bomb is simple; it requires nothing more than a drill. Just drill a hole in the bottom of either of the separate containers -- remember, by itself each liquid is harmless -- let the fluid drain out and the two can't mix and therefore can't explode.)
(**Yeah, I know -- I suck.)