And now, a discussion of the latest entry into our beloved Die Hard film series. The following is a detailed examination of Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
including details of various scenes and the film's narrative construction. In short, big huge spoilers follow. Reader discretion is advised...If it seems that
Live Free Or Die Hard has some literary weakness (and it does), this perhaps can be blamed on source material. The first two
Die Hard films we based on pre-existing novels (
Nothing Lasts Forever and
58 Minutes -- both fairly enjoyable works).
Die Hard easily had the best writing going for it, being adapted by Jeb Stuart (
48 HRS.,
The Fugitive, the upcoming
John Rambo) and Steven E. de Souza (
48 HRS.,
Commando).
Die Hard 2 was adapted by de Souza and Doug Richardson (
Bad Boys,
Money Train).
Die Hard With a Vengeance was written directly for the screen (though was reportedly cobbled together from a screenplay intended for the
Lethal Weapon series) by Jonathan Hensleigh (who went on to
Armegeddon).
Live Free Or Die Hard was based on a 1997
Wired magazine article called "A Farewell To Arms" by John Carlin and written by Mark Bomback (
Godsend) and David Marconi (
Enemy Of The State).
This isn't to say that films not-based on novels are weaker entities. It's notable, perhaps, when considering a film's origins and how they're built upon to envision the finished project. My thinking is that -- in the translation of page-to-screen of first novel, from
Nothing Lasts Forever into
Die Hard -- the adapting screenwriters had much to work with from the original novel and are allowed (or borrow) some additional background and character inspiration regarding the heroic lead figure. Joe Leland (the novel's hero) is an older, more
Clint Eastwood type who's saving his daughter from the invading villains within a metropolitan skyscraper. The
heroic lead of
58 Minutes is also trying to save his particular daughter, this time in a hijack/airport situation over Christmas holiday that found its way straight into
Die Hard 2. The makers of the first two films simply changed "daughter" to "wife," cast the wonderful Bonnie Bedelia as the newly christened Holly Gennero McClane, and
voila! A cinematic family is born.
What I wonder about is
Die Hard 3 and
4 -- do they suffer from not having this literary basis, this pre-existing history and from-the-novel background? It could be said that
DH3 suffers from not following its predecessors in the "preserve the family unit at all costs" subtext of
DH1 &
DH2. The relationship between John (Willis) and Holly (Bedelia) was the emotional anchor that gave the first two films their strength and character. McClane was never an unstoppable superhero like so many Stallones and Schwarzeneggers. He was a man with a family, fighting to keep his wife safe.
DH3 misses out on this completely, but it is buoyed by the buddy chemistry of McClane and Zeus Carver (a terrific Samuel L. Jackson).
DH4 tries to fill the emotional slots with a cantankerous relationship between McClane and his daughter, Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who appeared in
Grindhouse). The attempt gets minor points for trying but loses a few more later. More on this in a moment...
Certainly
DH4's villains suffer in comparison. Our new head baddie, Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) may be the weakest antagonist of the series (he'd be nothing without his laptop) and has none of the menace nor the charisma of his predecessors. Regarding Gabriel's reason for doing what he does -- how silly is it that his criminal scheme is
mainly born not out of simple greed or political anger or even revenge, but of a
bruised ego? In the world of responsible, get-the-job-done front-liners like McClane, this villain is a strutting, delusional, Derek Zoolanderish, techno-punk whiner who's all up in a tizzy because he didn't get the credit he feels he deserves after designing a flawed National Security protection system and then pointing it's flaws out to his superiors. This is rather like getting a bad coffee at Starbucks, then having the Barista come out to your table to point out his shabby brewing work and then asking for a hefty tip. He's more up-to-date but not much of a character. Gabriel might be McClane's superior in the digital world of telecom technology, but -- as Gabriel soon discovers -- McClane is easily his superior in the analog world of "ripping people a new one" technology.
Gabriel's henchmen have little charisma compared earlier
Die Hard "teams of evil." Maggie Q is certainly pleasing but is never given much of a character to play. She's capable of entertaining work as can be seen in the Hong Kong actioner
Naked Weapon and the more recent
Mission: Impossible III. And the "unstoppable" Cyril Raffaeli of
District B-13 fame might be a good fighter and acrobat, but he has none of the danger, edge or mystery of Alexander Gudonov in
Die Hard and pales by comparison. These aren't characters, they're character types -- empty cyphers that might as well be wearing t-shirts that read "Hot Evil Girlfriend" or "Bad Guy #2." It's not the actors' fault they don't make a dent -- it's the screenplay's for not giving them more rounded, defined people to play. Nearly twenty years later we still remember "Karl" and "Theo" from
Die Hard. One day after seeing
Live Free, I need to pay a visit to IMDB to even remember anyone's names.
For
Live Free's climax, we are given a scene that is nearly a direct lift from the ending of the first, best
Die Hard. Gabriel and a light load of Henchmen have Lucy McClane and Matt Farrell (Justin Long) under gunpoint -- just as Gruber (Alan Rickman) and his fellow baddies had Holly (Bedelia) under gunpoint in
Die Hard. There, McClane had only two bullets left, came up with a genius plan, calmly walked (or "limped") into the room and expertly ended their lives with little more than a joke and some deadly marksmanship. Here, in the same situation presented in
Live Free or Die Hard, do the writers pay tribute somehow with their final act cribbed so closely from the original? Do they actually sit and come up with something equally as clever or exciting or even original? No. They have McClane just march straight into the room like a mad bull, guns blazing, with no strategy or plan whatsoever. That's some lazy writing... as well as a major error that McClane would never likely make, despite being caught in the heat of anger or revenge. This goes against McClane's established character and the scene suffers greatly for it. Similarly, the ensuing standoff and punishment of Gabriel a moment later seems that much less potent and leaves us wanting something more grand, operatic... or maybe just a little cooler. Gabriel deserves a far more vicious beatdown (and a far longer, more satisfying comeuppance) for all the terror he's wrought across the country and across the lives of our heroes.
Speaking of which (as mentioned earlier), the "Lucy McClane in peril" portions of the storyline are so perfunctory in their construction that they make an already ridiculous narrative that much more silly. The first scene with Lucy & John arguing outside her that parked car was genuinely human and amusing. It was soon less so when it became obvious that it was mere set-up for the third act's kidnapping plotline. Lucy exists only to get abducted and to toss around a few humorous lines. She's not as organic to the plotline of
DH4 as Holly is in
DH1 (or even
DH2 to a lesser extent). Holly is the reason McClane visits Los Angeles in
Die Hard in the first place. For all her integral-to-plotness, Lucy might as well be some random that McClane buys the Daily News from every morning.
Sadly, director Len Wiseman drops the ball in several ways. By current filmmaking standards,
Live Free is a decent ride. But compared to
Die Hard and the first half of
Die Hard With A Vengeance, both directed by the great but suddenly unfavored John McTiernan, a great deal of
Live Free feels as unreal as a cartoon. Nothing in Wiseman's previous work in the
Underworld films would seem to suggest a mind capable of helming something as important as a
Die Hard film. (Yes, I said
important.) Something about the way McTiernan shoots a film -- the you-are-there aesthetic, the sweat, the impending danger, the realism -- makes the drama and fear of his earlier
Die Hard films that much more satisfying. (Not so much Renny Harlin's
Die Hard 2.) Wiseman is a fairly decent chaos-director... I quite enjoyed the car chases and a little of the "jetfighter versus truck" stuff. But his action rarely feels emotionally involving. Sure, action films have regrettably "evolved" to a point of intensity that's way over the top and far too computer generated, these days. But they can also be streamlined and reality-based, as can be seen every week on television's
24, a series that owes much to McClane and his methods. In fact, in many ways Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) pretty much
is McClane without a sense of humor. I like to think they'd get along fairly well if they ever bumped into each other at their local pub.
There's a bit more in
Live Free that one could pick apart. The Gas Explosion sequence could've been removed entirely. The sequence in which McClane dispatches an opponent by driving through a dozen concrete walls with an SUV and pinning said opponent under said
exploding SUV (
at the bottom an elevator shaft, mind you) is so stupidly conceived it's embarrassing. (Just how did he get from the parking garage inside the building, anyway? That's one tough SUV.) There's far too much shabby dialogue looping and ADR work, likely done in haste in order to cover the edited-down-to-PG-13 aspect of the film you're all aware of. No doubt an extended-cut of the film will be released to DVD in the near future, crassly capitalizing on our desire to hear our beloved "yippee-ki-yay" line in all it's well-deserved glory
And yet... Despite all it's weak points... And it's weak points are many...
Live Free Or Die Hard still works as simple summer entertainment. It's a testament to Bruce Willis and his work as John McClane that even with the film's many shortcomings, we still have a great time watching it unfold. There are other pleasures... Justin Long's techno-geek character wasn't nearly as rote nor as annoying as he could've been. In fact, I wanted to know more about his background, who his parents are and how he's so technologically gifted. He and McClane strike an initially uneasy partnership and eventually seem very father/son, on occassion. The helicopter chase material is a lot of fun and the film's musical score by Marco Beltrami even has a few Michael Kamen tributes in there with several loving callbacks to the late composer's earlier
Die Hard scores. Like
The Last Boy Scout and
Hudson Hawk before it,
Live Free Or Die Hard is miraculously more than the sum of its parts.
Perhaps the character of John McClane, the cop with the attitude who never gives up and never backs down, is script-and-situation proof. Perhaps we will always love the guy no matter what. More so than Indiana Jones, more than James Bond, more than Neo, more than near anyone else in current cinema, John McClane is the funny, blue-collar, get-it-done man that we all not only want to be but could be if given the same circumstances. He can't stick to walls, shoot webs, turn back time or stop bullets. He's just one of the guys. One of our friends. One of us...
And may he Live Free forever.
*** stars (out of four).
As some of you might already know, a sizable part of my life has recently changed. Nothing spectacular, mind you. I haven't sold a screenplay nor been offered a film production deal. I haven't hit the lottery. And I haven't just gotten fed up, moved to Los Angeles and jumped headfirst into the porn industry. (Yet.)
In other news, you might remember a few posts back when I mentioned that I was beginning my next creative endeavor in the screenplay form. I'd mentioned moving some things around in my workspace environment in an attempt to alleviate the visual chaos of my workspace and to suffer far less distraction from writing. Excellent theory, yes? I think so too. Except, it didn't work.
Otherwise, tomorrow signals the Special Edition DVD, HD and Blu-Ray release of one of the most important and influential motion pictures of the 1980's -- Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. Featuring fine performances, superb screenwriting, dazzling special effects and wonderous cinematography, music scoring, production design and direction, the film is the thinking person's action/sci-fi/noir classic. Blade Runner -- in any version you see (and there are at least four) -- ranks amongst what I consider to be the best movies of our time. If you haven't seen it yet, please do. You owe it to yourself.
