Dying For Improvement

Unless you live in a cave somewhere you are probably aware that the fifth movie in the "Die Hard" franchise - "It's A Good Day To Die Hard" - opened in theaters today. Not only has the movie been endlessly promoted with commercials, but I have barely been able to click on a website without seeing Bruce Willis's face on advertising banner. The movie hasn't been getting very good reviews so far, which doesn't surprise me for a couple of reasons. The first goes back to my theory that the more a movie is promoted in obscure ways, the worse it is going to be. (Just remember, you never saw the stars of "Lincoln" sitting courtside at a Lakers game hoping to get a mention.) Secondly, action movies never get good reviews. The high-and-mighty movie critics never seem to think a movie is good unless it is trolling for Oscars, which is why I never pay attention to them when deciding whether or not to see an action movie. But, the third and most important reason I wasn't expecting good reviews for the latest Die Hard movie is because the last couple of installments have not been good. Seriously, has there ever been a movie franchise with such diminishing returns?

Look, I love the original "Die Hard" as much as anyone. In many ways, it is the perfect action movie. It is just the perfect actor for the role and the script of 'right guy in the wrong place at the right time' was so well done it has been endlessly copied ever since. It's been running on the cable movie channels all week and I can't help but watch a few minutes of it almost every time it is on. Also, I am one of the few people who doesn't think "Die Hard II" was awful. It wasn't as good as the original, but sequels never are. To me the franchise went off the rails in the third one when the added Samuel L. Jackson as the buddy sidekick. Plus, they went too big in that movie. What made the original so amazing was that it was over-the-top, but not offensive. I know the producers had to step up the action for the sequels or otherwise it would have just been the movie as before, but they went too far. I understand that all action films require the audience to suspend some level of reality and most audience members are willing to go along in the name of entertainment, but the really good action movies don't abuse that relationship just because they have a big budget. That is what made the fourth "Die Hard" movie so awful - suddenly Bruce Willis is jumping onto moving jet fighters and driving cars into helicopters. It was just too much. The previews for the latest edition appear to take it to an even more preposterous level.

I tried to think of another movie franchise which hung on too long and genuinely couldn't come up with one. Unlike TV shows which can stay on the air long after most fans stop watching, it is rare that movie franchises keep going once America decides they have had enough. It generally feels like movie franchises run out of steam by the third one (Spiderman, X-Men), which is why they get rebooted in one form or another but don't really count as being the same franchise. Had they stopped after "Die Hard: With A Vengeance" it would have been just another franchise that pressed its luck and went to the well too many times, but they now made two more movies after they ran out of steam. If you're doing the math at home that is four movies based on the same character which, depending on who you talk to, resulted in only 1 or 2 quality films. Armed with that math it is actually kind of surprising they decided to make a fifth installment at all. I can only assume it was because, like "Rocky Balboa" was supposed to wipe away the memories of "Rocky V", they were hoping this movie was going to be more of a throwback to the original and would make everyone forget about "Live Free Or Die Hard." (I'm pretty sure that dream ended as soon as they saw the rough cut of the first few scenes.) If this was the James Bond franchise they would have switched actors a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure Bruce Willis wouldn't let anyone else play this character.

The biggest concern is if the latest "Die Hard" movie is as bad as everyone expects it to be it will start to reflect negatively on the previous installments. Unlike with the "Indiana Jones" movies, where the last one was so bad it caused people to look back on "Temple of Doom" (clearly the weakest of the previous three) with a new-found respect, I would be worried that another bad "Die Hard" movie will make people downgrade the original. If this movie bombs that means three of the franchise's five attempts were poor, which isn't a great winning percentage. Much like a baseball GM, you are only as good as the last prospect you found and you can't live off past success forever. I'm sure the movie will open up to good numbers, but that will be more a product of the time of year (remember, putting out a movie when 40% of the country has snow on the ground is a great way to inflate the attendance numbers because people go to the movies more when it's cold) and the fact that there are no other huge movies opening up this weekend. This time of year it feels like every movie gets a turn at being #1, but that doesn't equal quality. I'll be interested to see how good the numbers for the second weekend are, because if we have learned anything from the "Die Hard" franchise it is that one good outing doesn't mean something positive is destined to follow.