Rating of
1.5/4
Die Hard died hard
Daniel - wrote on 06/11/13
It is a bad day to die hard.... in fact this movie gave us the reason to not die hard.
We all know and love Bruce Willis because... well, because he is Bruce Willis. He made countless movies amazing or even watchable due to just being that great actor with a smirk on his face whether in the face of danger or whether he is facing a crazed female. Unfortunately the odds were against him this time. This movie simply could not tap into Bruce's potential and use him to the fullest to create what could have been a gem. The script is probably the weakest link, since the effects were GREAT! Yes bigger and louder and awesome-er; but the script just kept making the movie trip over and stumble to its knees, with full knowledge that every actor had the ability to deliver a great performance. One of the more irritating lines John (Bruce) had was... JESUS CHRIST!!! over and over again... and it seemed like the production wanted us to hear that line ring out since no matter how loud it got, no matter how exciting and heated thing escalated to, one line kept ringing out...
The incorporation of the son into this story I think was a good attempt to introduce a new character... however there is a problem here... ahem... problems:
First, Die Hard hold a strong association to John McClane and Bruce Willis, and the fact that Bruce agreed to make this many movies is great, and we should be fortunate that the franchise did not replace him with another actor look-a-like or made prequels.
This leads me to my next point: the son may be an interesting choice to continue the Die Hard franchise however, he has not been developed enough to be liked and more importantly, loved. That character has to be able to fill a pretty big shadow. This leads back again to the first point, Die Hard is associated with John, which means that in order for us to accept his son as the new protagonist, the viewer needs to forget about John McClane.
I fully appreciate the efficiency and advantages of building on a pre-existing foundation, however, one must first level the playing field in order to do so, and this is why it is important for the old hero to step down to make way to the new one. The problem is, it is not the viewers’ job to do this, but the writers’ and producers’ to ensure that it is done as effortlessly and seamlessly as possible.
The other problem is that as much as I’d like to see some franchises to just go on and on, I believe they do need to come to an end at some point. For me, the first two movies made John McClane the hero that he is, this badass cop who takes bad guys down. The third movie built on that feeling, and would have been a great closing… at this point John has proven to us that he is truly the hero cop that we love. The fourth movie was unnecessary but entertaining, a comeback of sorts, so it was welcome (and well done for that matter). But now, the fifth one is over chewed food that needs to be spat out and not swallowed.
As a final note: Yes, John saves the day, kills terrorists and the sort. However, most of the incidents were localized. The fourth one took a lee of faith and went national… we bought it, but this movie sends him to a extremely militarized and paranoid country. This makes it unbelievable and unrealistic. Last time I checked, I was not watching Narnia.
