Action
flicks are one of the staples of being a film goer. It's got many
things to enjoy, from romance to adrenaline rushes, to everything
else you can think of. And one that comes to mind to most people is
the 1988 John McTiernan film, “Die Hard.”
The
film is about a New York cop named John McClane, who visits L.A. to
see his family for the holidays. When he's visiting his wife at a
party for her business at the Nakatomi Plaza, the building is raided
by terrorists, lead by Hans Gruber, but John manages to be the only
one not caught, and has to take them all down, and save his wife.
He's outnumbered, outgunned, barefoot, and the stakes are high, but
he'll step up to that challenge. This film was released around the
time that big name action stars like Schwarzenegger and Stallone were
portrayed as these invincible juggernauts in “Commando” and
“Rambo,” but with John McClane, he's just a regular guy, who
happens to be a cop. He's doing all this, because he has no other
choice; he does make comebacks to his enemies, but he's still scared
about the whole thing; he does get hurt badly throughout the film,
physically AND mentally; John McClane...is HUMAN. And he serves as
one of the most realistic protagonists not just in films, but in
general. This is what deviated Bruce Willis from Stallone and
Schwarzenegger, because of his humanity and charm. His ongoing
chemistry with the other characters is very reasonable, and he says
what any sane person would say under these circumstances. Not only
that, but Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber is still to this day, one of
the greatest villains ever portrayed. But overall, “Die Hard” is
the definition of a perfect action movie.
Two
years later, we were given “Die Hard 2: Die Harder,” and it's
pretty much what you'd expect. This time, an airport is undertaken by
another group of terrorists, this time lead by Franco Nero, and John
McClane has to settle things through to save his wife, all while
dealing with some sleezy cops that give him a hard time. It does try
to raise the stakes and make all of it bigger, but it just results in
a big clunky film. Don't get me wrong, it's not ALL bad, since there
are some enjoyable moments and it still feels like a “Die Hard”
movie. However, there are some instances where it feels far fetched,
but it still has some fun either way.
It
wasn't for another five years, that we'd get a TRUE “Die Hard”
sequel, under the name “Die Hard with a Vengeance.” In this one,
Hans Gruber's brother, Simon, is after McClane by playing a game of
riddles, in exchange for stopping bombs planted around the city of
New York. McClane has to team up with Zeus Carver, a racist
electrician whose dragged into this after saving McClane from getting
killed in Harlem. Now the two have to find Simon, solve the riddles
and stop the detonators, and put a stop to Simon's other plan at
hand. John McTiernan returns as director,
giving this movie a great amount of enjoyment, in terms of 90's
action, and with how they did it is spectacular. Samuel L. Jackson as
Zeus adds a lot of great humor to the film and his ongoing chemistry
between him and McClane is one of the biggest highlights. He's pretty
much like ANOTHER John McClane, not wanting to be apart of this
situation, but he has to or else shit well get real. Before, Jackson
was only famous for his work on “Pulp Fiction,” but this is where
he also got his stardom going. Jeremy Irons gives a fantastic
performance as Simon Gruber, and is the perfect choice for Alan
Rickman's successor as a “Die Hard” villain. He's smart,
calculative, and plays his cards right, so it is hard to outsmart
him. Though if I had to choose one complaint about the film, it would
have to be the ending. Not that it's bad, but if it was done
differently, I would have said it was just as good as the original,
if not better. But that doesn't mean this came close.
After
about a good twelve years since the third, and almost 20 years since
the original, we were given a fresh and new film from “Underworld”
director, Len Wiseman, “Live Free or Die Hard” (Die Hard 4.0). In
this film, computer meltdowns are going down towards hackers, and one
by one, they're getting killed in an corruption explosion. That is
except for one, Matthew Farrell, who is rescued by John McClane, and
they set out to find Thomas Gabriel, and put an end to his plans of
digitally collapsing the economy completely. While this is a big step
down from the third film, that doesn't mean it's not good. It does
have a lot of enjoyment to it, but it doesn't quite have the same
feeling that the other three had. It felt a little too modernized,
and I felt some of the characters were either unnecessary or just
annoying. Justin Long as Matthew Farrell got on my nerves, but he did
serve a purpose. In the beginning, he was a bit whiny and acted like
a pompous jerk at times, with that attitude of new is better than
old. I really hate people who are like that. Timothy Olyphant as
Thomas Gabriel was...okay but he seemed to lack the intimidation of
Hans and the calculative charm of Simon. He wasn't bad, just not good
enough. Mary Elizabeth Winstead played Lucy, McClane's daughter, and
she was probably the most unnecessary character in the film. She just
didn't serve that much of a purpose, other to be there for McClane to
save. It was said that Winstead was one of five candidates for
playing Lucy, and one of which was Taylor Fry, who was the daughter
in the original film. I don't get why they didn't choose her...but
then again, it was either Winstead, or having to deal with Jessica
Simpson or Brittany Spears. Also, I didn't really see a purpose of
making the film PG-13, where as the rest have been R rated. I think
it was just to get a bigger box office grossing, but it felt
unnecessary with how they were editing it. Even with the unrated cut,
I've heard that the editing was off. However, with all of that, it
doesn't quite make it a bad movie, it just has some problems.
Now
after attending the “Die Hard Marathon,” I was able to see these
films leading up to the new one, “A Good Day to Die Hard.” And
let me say this, I have never been so disappointed in a film than
this one. If you thought 2 or 4 were bad, take a look at THIS one!
So
what's the plot of the film?...Boy is THAT the million dollar
question here. Now let me say this, this is one of the first films in
a long time that I had walked out on, and it wasn't just because I
was tired, but that NOTHING WAS HAPPENING IN THIS FILM! All I could
gather was that John McClane goes to visit his son Jack in Russia,
but it turns out that Jack is a spy, who is in cahoots with a Russian
terrorist, or something like that, and John gets dragged into the
mix. That's all I could gather from it. So when I retried watching it
online, I was still in the same mixed of confusion on this plot.
Let's
discuss what's wrong with the movie, aside from its terrible plot (or
lack of, I should say), and that's the action scenes. Not too long
in, we're put into a car chase, that feels like something out of a
“Transporter” movie, than it does a “Die Hard” film. It's
just constant car chase, with hardly a shot that lasts three seconds,
and physics that are so out of reality, that it's just insulting to
this franchise. What made “Die Hard” so great and memorable was
it's reality, and how you could picture yourself in the same
situation, doing the same thing (if you were in good shape). In this
film, it not only disregards that fact, it completely DESTROYS it!
This isn't a “Die Hard” film, it's a generic action film that not
even Steven Seagal would put on his resume. The dialogue in this film
is pretty much most of the same thing over and over again, about Jai
Courtney and Bruce Willis talking about father-son relations and how
they didn't have those moments, etc. And I'm not exaggerating here,
this is literally what goes on throughout the film. As for the
villains, oh wait, WHAT villains? They're just Russian terrorists.
Again, not exaggerating. Jai Courtney was also very boring as Jack,
and I felt he could have done so much, if they had gotten a better
script and director (we'll get to them shortly.)
Also,
I'd like to ask one major question here: *ahem*...WHERE
THE HELL IS JOHN MC-FUCKING-CLANE?!? This
is the number one thing I was asking myself every single minute of
the film, and I didn't see him at all. I saw Bruce Willis playing
John McClane, but I didn't see John McClane. You could have called
him ANYTHING and you would have had the same exact film! There isn't
even the slightest hint of John McClane's charm ANYWHERE in this
film, aside from a slight one-liner, but that's it. That's not John
McClane, that's Church from "The Expendables." I mean, give “Indiana Jones 4” SOME credit, at
least it HAD Indiana Jones.
This
film was directed by John Moore, the same guy who directed “Max
Payne” and “The Omen (2006),” and I honestly would rather watch
both those films than this ever again. It shocks me how the original
director for this movie turned it down to work on the sequel for
“300,” should have been the first sign of this. The script was
written by Skip Woods, who was the writer for “Hitman” and “X-Men
Origins: Wolverine.” How his script got green-lit is beyond me.
Overall,
“A Good Day to Die Hard” is not only the worst of the “Die
Hard” films AND the worst of the year so far, it is by far...the WORST SEQUEL I have ever seen in my life, and I saw "Highlander 2!"
Rating:
1/10
No comments:
Post a Comment