Well, that's it. The 3rd sequel of the much beloved franchise "Die hard" was upon me. I have to admit I was kinda ecstatic when they announced back in 2007. Bruce Willis looked good, the cast seemed solid (Olyphant, Long, Q, Winstead), the trailer displayed massive set pieces of destruction. And then this happened....
PG-13: First of all, a great screw you to all the fans of the original trilogy. Pretty much every single fight in all die hard films was felt. McClane was pretty much destroyed when he was encountering the villains and many times pure luck and the surroundings of his environment assisted him to survive. Who can forget the ice stalactite in the guy's eye socket in "Die hard 2"? Or "now I have a machine gun...hohohoho". The kills were almost reaching splatter territory and even represented in quite some graphic imaginery (through the use of blood squibs of course). But the pussyfication of the "Die hard" franchise did not stop here (even worse with "A good day to die hard"). Adding even more levels of insult in the whole thing, we get a unrated cut with CGI blood. Piss off movie. If you want to try to get a wider audience with toned down violence, do not do it. It is still violence but because we do not see blood, the little kiddies in the States are going to think that it is ok? Best. Logic. Ever.
0 chances of survival rate in the real world: John McClane captured the imagination of the worldwide audience because he really seemed the wrong guy at the wrong time at the wrong place (portrayed with finesse by Willis). He was not an ultimate badass with special forces background. Just a regular NYC detective with average training. Here though, we get a McClane who survives falls from buildings, bridges, cars, and ventilation shafts (!), military airplanes shooting rockets and bullets, parkour experts, explosions, traffic jams, car accidents, martial artists who totally would have killed him and in the most obvious fashion, bullets in his body. McClane has become a parody, a guy who is truly indestructible for our entertainment and can take pretty much any type of henchmen. Next time he will be able to defeat superheroes as well.
|He should have died a billion times in the film at this point|
The villain: Despite conceptualizing Gabriel as a kinda morally grey villain, the more the film progresses, the worst it becomes. He has a totally convoluted plan to kill the hackers that performed the work for him, instead of trying the old-fashioned technique to assassinate them with ...let's say a sniper rifle. Efficient. Fast. Effective. But no...the whole thing of exploding your computer through a virus is so totally ridiculous that actually puts into motion the terrible plot. Some interesting aspects of his character (America has flaws on its security system), Gabriel does not even come across as a two dimensional villain. He remains in one note territory and he overcomes really fast his grief over his dead now girlfriend. Add on that the fact that he has multiple times to put John underground but no, he really likes rambling. If I was him, I would tear him apart so I can make my plan to work.
|Bigger set pieces do not mean better movie. When are you going to learn that?|
Bigger action: Larger set pieces that the ones I witnessed before do not mean necessarily a better movie (see "The matrix reloaded", "Total Recall(remake)"). Len Wiseman employs trucks, helicopters, planes, apartments, cars, shoot-outs and explosions, lots of explosions but they never make a proper impression. We have seen all these things before. What set "Die Hard" was the claustrophobic setting of the first, the brilliantly put idea of an airport at the centre of the action in the second, and the chaotic streets of NY in the third with an interesting twist regarding a bomb crazed villain. And this is exactly why Die Hard 4 never registered to my brain.
Cyril Rafaelli: What's the point of introducing one of the biggest stars in parkour if you are not going to use properly? In a similar fate with Chow-Yun Fat and pretty much any non American action star in a major Hollywood film, Rafaelli is barely 5 minutes in and DIES LIKE A BITCH. He should have killed McClane in one go. Younger, faster and more powerful that McClane he absolutely poses no problem.
Each of these points reflect how bad I feel about DH. The first three are classics in my opinion and even now, they look incredibly well made, with great characters, set pieces and pieces of dialogue. Here we do not even get to listen to the profanity (Yippie kay Hey mothe$%^&*!). Really? Good call Hollywood executives. What a piece of garbage.
- no swearing
- no adult violence
- PG-13 rating
- CGI blood
- one dimensional villain
- convoluted plan so laughable to take it seriously
- Kevin Smith cameo- WTF?
- Superhero McClane
- Misuse of Cyril Rafaelli