Movie Review: A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD

I went to see A Good Day to Die Hard yesterday. I'm a fan of the "Die Hard" movies, although the first movie is by far the best in the series so far. It had a rock solid plot and worked in the family relationships perfectly. It was an action movie, but the character development wasn't compromised either. It will always be one of my all-time favorite movies. So I was excited to learn that there was a fifth movie coming out and of course had to see it opening weekend.





The premise of this fifth movie is that John McClane has learned that his son has been arrested for killing someone in Russia and even though they've had a rocky relationship and a falling out (they haven't spoken to or seen each other in years), he heads to Russia. Meanwhile, there's a political controversy brewing in Russia between the current leader and a political prisoner who's about to go to trial. We learn pretty fast that John McClane's son, Jack, is somehow mixed up in this trial. Of course, as soon as John arrives, things start exploding and he gets caught up in whatever his son is mixed up in. And of course, it's about more than just politics as the plot begins to twist and turn, as "Die Hard" plots are wont to do.

First off, the good stuff. If you're going to see this because you like explosions and chases and gun fights and some interesting plot twists and turns, then you're in luck. I thought the plot of the movie was great. It snaked through the usual betrayals and sudden revelations as Jack and John fight to stay alive and figure out what the hell is going on, as their initial assumptions are shot to hell around them. It's a plot in the grand "Die Hard" tradition. One of the best things about this franchise is the way the plots start off being about one thing, but morph into another along the way in a believable way. (I am willfully ignoring the plot of the second movie here . . . and to some extent the fourth.) I'm not saying the plot was rock solid, but it was cleaner than many other action movies out there.

The plot was the best part of the film. I had major problems with the father-son relationship. Basically, I just didn't buy into it at all, at any point during the movie. The scenes between John and his son Jack were awkward and sometimes painful. There was maybe one or two sections that felt genuine (like the time his son overheard John talking to the guy their attempting to keep alive, and perhaps the moment near the pool), but pretty much I squirmed in my seat during all of the other "touching moment/reconciliation" scenes. The good news is there weren't many. In fact, the best family characterization scenes were those involving John's daughter (who reconciled with him in the fourth movie). THOSE scenes felt real, even the one at the end. Unfortunately, the daughter was only featured in two scenes, one at the beginning and one at the end (plus a phone conversation early on, but that doesn't really count). In any case, the family dynamic and characterizations in that respect fell flat for me.

Another issue I had was with the plot (yes, even though I said it was a good plot earlier on): mainly, the plot wasn't set up as well as it could have been. I felt the first part of the movie was far too rushed and that a few key scenes here and there would have gone a LONG way in establishing things before they all started going to hell. I'm not talking big things, but the first "Die Hard" movie took its time setting things up--how McClane got there, what the relationship with his wife was like, how the bad guys seized control, etc. This movie didn't do that. Some of the plot turns early on were not fleshed out and explained as much as they should have been. It was mostly a problem with clarity. The essential pieces of the plot and why it turned are there, but they aren't set up and explained well enough. For example, at one point Jack and John's hiding place is found. If you watch closely and pay attention, you can piece together that the bad guys have discovered John is there and is involved and that they tracked his cell phone to find them. But all of those connections are left up to the viewer, and even though the pieces are there, it would have taken a couple of second of (perhaps great) conversation between John and Jack to establish those connections. This issue happened early on in the movie, but lessened as it progressed. The movie was only about an hour and forty minutes; they could have spent 10 more minutes at the beginning giving us just a little more in the set-up and the rest of the movie would have worked much better.

And lastly, John's reactions to many of the events in the movie were just . . . off. He wasn't acting like the John McClane we know and love from the first movie. I'd say Bruce Willis phoned this in, but I don't think he did. Any scene that was longer and involved decent screen time with him was good. But many of the connecting scenes involving action were not. We didn't get to see the great facial expressions of "Oh, shit!" and such that were such a part of the other movies.

So, some issues with the movie, yes. But overall I did enjoy seeing the movie and would recommend it to those who just want to see John McClane in action, with an emphasis on the action, rather than thought or family drama. I can see why this movie wasn't released over the summer blockbuster season--it isn't really a blockbuster--but it was still great entertainment.

Book Review: "Under the Dome" by Stephen King

I have to say I really enjoyed Under the Dome. It had all of the elements of a Stephen King novel that I love--lots of characters, people to root for, people to hate, an interesting set-up, and of course a horrific conclusion.





The basic premise behind the book is that the little town of Chester's Mill, Maine (of course) is suddenly and inexplicably placed under an invisible (at first) and seemingly indestructible dome. Air and water can pass through it somewhat, but for the most part the townspeople are cut off from outside help and are forced to rely on their own resources in order to survive. Initially, this isn't a problem. The Dome doesn't appear to do anything except cut them off, and so people simply go on living while the government tries to figure out how to save them. But of course, people being people, as all attempts to break the Dome fail, the calm, collected, and rule-abiding society within the Dome begins to come apart and the real monsters (mainly our true selves) begin to come out.

The best part of the book is the unraveling of the well-ordered society and the revealing of the true nature of some of the townspeople as things go from odd to desperate. Stephen King excels at these kinds of stories. And what I love about this book is that--even though the Dome is mysterious and otherworldly--the story is NOT about the Dome, it's about the people trapped inside of it and how they react to it. Some of them retain their humanity and fight to survive. Others allow their base nature, their inner selves that they hide beneath the veneer or everyday life, to come to the fore. The slow degradation of the society, how it inevitably begins to fall apart as resources begin to become scarce and fear sets in, is the true horror of this novel, not the Dome.

I think what's scariest about the book is how real everything is, another aspect that King excels at. Everything that happens in this book (aside from the strangeness of the Dome itself) is totally believable. You can see these people reacting and behaving in this way. And unlike many of the novels out there, simply being a "good guy" doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to survive. In fact, I think most people reading this book would be shocked at just how many of the "good guys" don't make it, for various reasons. I know that my limits were pushed in this regard, although even as I felt that pressure I realized that that was the whole point. You're supposed to feel desperate, just like the characters. You're supposed to feel a sense of hopelessness at points. You're supposed to ask, "Aren't the good guys going to catch a break?" And of course sometimes they do catch that break . . . but sometimes they don't, just like real life.

In the end, I couldn't find any issues with this book at all . . . well, perhaps one. The final explanation for the Dome itself pushed my believability a little. Not much, because the point behind it, King's focus for the book, fits in perfectly with that explanation. I don't want to say anything about what caused the Dome, since that would be a plot spoiler (and I hate those), but if I had to pick out one thing to quibble over, that would be it. But it would be a minor quibble. Because again, the book is not about the Dome. It's about the people trapped inside it.

An excellent book. One of King's best in my opinion, even with that minor quibble. Highly recommended.