Director John Moore talks working with Bruce Willis on A Good Day To Die Hard; also, is there a longer cut on the horizon?
I know that some of you dug it, but for me, A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD was not up to par. I'm not going to jump into a rant about it, as we've already heard plenty already, but the disdain for the film by many (most?) is something that factors into this story. It seems that director John Moore, who generated next to no excitement upon being announced as the helmer of the fifth iteration of the franchise, had chopped a director's cut of the film, which is "substantially longer than the 97 minute-long theatrical version, with the Moscow-levelling car chase around "30%" longer," according to an interview conducted by Empire a while back.
One of the common complaints about A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD was the 97-minute running time, which is the shortest of all the DIE HARD films, leaving many of us wondering if the shortened timespan is a reason for its less than stellar end product. Well, that and the awful script by Skip Woods. And the superhero stunts. And the...okay, I'll stop. The rating was also different in the UK (12A), which ended up giving the Brits an even more scaled down version, since they apparently aren't allowed to see blood.
Could this mean a much longer unrated cut on blu-ray? That's certainly a possibility and while the movie is underperforming domestically, it's already garnered $183 million worldwide, which ain't exactly pennies in the bucket. I doubt that an extended cut, especially of an already ridiculous car chase will change my mind, but you never know. At the very least, I'd give it another day in court.
Here's how I approached it. I've done music work in the past and whether it's Bono or Mick Jagger, you're not going to tell them how to sing one of their songs, but you can construct the concert around them, you can move the lights, you can move the cameras, you can construct the imagery, but you're not going to say, "Mick, I think you should put your foot up on the monitor here during Brown Sugar." For a start, you'd be told to go fuck yourself, but you also might be tampering with something that you yourself greatly admire, and I don't know if I want that. I want someone to have clean hands handling that lab sample, and Bruce has clean hands.
If he thinks of something, it's going to be McClane-esque with a 25-year study of it. If I think of something McClane-esque, it'll be with the consciousness of a fan. Am I going to be the wildlife photographer saying, here comes the snow leopard, let's film him, or shall we fake it in the studio? The approach was to take one constant, Bruce as McClane and he knows what to do, and put the rest around that. I'm confident that that was the smart thing to do. It also made sure he brought his A game, and the contract was I'll film it, you do your thing and I'll give you as much direction as you want, but know that I won't let you down.
Personally, it sounds like Moore just did whatever Bruce told him to do and didn't even attempt to guide him. Bruce may have played the character in four films prior, but there was a lot of time and distance between them. And, Bruce Willis didn't create the character of John McClane. Roderick Thorp and Steven E. de Souza did. It riles me up a bit, but at this point, I'm over it. I'll leave it to you guys to dissect. For more from Moore, check out the full interview at Empire.
A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD is currently in theaters.
|Extra Tidbit:||So, yeah. Who wants John Moore back for Die Hard 6?|
|Source:||Empire (via Bleeding Cool)|