Why 'Die Hard 4' sucks.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Live Free or Die Hard
Drooch — 10 years ago(August 30, 2015 10:57 PM)
The best way to understand how poor a film DHINO is, is to compare it to Die Hard and see where it falls short, which you'll notice it does on every level.
The film reeks of the committee meetings that led to its inception, where QUALITY was sacrificed at every stage for MONEY. The studio had a meeting about how to maximise profits and decided that the film needs to remove all foul language to ensure a PG-13 rating, including masking the hero's iconic catchphrase with the sound of a gunshot. It needs a succession of 'cool' action scenes, each one louder and more extravagant than the last that will resemble a video game - popular with teens. It needs to pair McClane up with a young computer-wizz that the new computer-savvy teen audience can relate to. It needs a sexy young girl, again for the teenage boys. It needs a hip, young villain, preferably a familiar face from youth-oriented cinema - Timothy Olyphant for the girls. Let's crowbar Kevin Smith in because he's a popular voice amongst the youth market (no swearing though!) We need a young eager-to-advance-his-career music video director who is big on style and won't bog things down with SUBSTANCE, we'll go with Len Wiseman. We need a separate title for American audiences that will get the young and stupid mindlessly cheering 'freedom!' (the film is called Die Hard 4.0 outside America). A marketing deal with Pizza Hut and Arby's will bring McClane to the budget family market - a huge dollar.
The shrieking stupidity of the film makes it unsuitable for the Die Hard series - moments such as when Gabriel blacks out a tunnel, only for the cars to accelerate into the darkness like lunatics instead of, erm, braking and, erm, turning their lights on. Or when McClane taunts and provokes the villain who is threatening to shoot his daughter in the head - the studio hope that youngsters in the audience will cheer on McClane for his irreverence, the rest of us can't believe how fcking stupid this patronising garbage is. The terrible edu-tainment moments of McClane teaching Matt Farrell, and vicariously all the kiddies in the audience, how to be THAT GUY are unforgivably corny and trite. The wafer thin characterisations, amateur directing, overblown to the point of absurdity action scenes, utterly ineffectual villain - all conspire to make this some third rate, bland, tedious action pop for teens. NONE of the qualities that made the trilogy distinct and special are present in this cynical marketing cash-grab posing as 'a Die Hard film'.
The problems begin at the script stage, and again one can compare the scripts for the first film, which is used as an example of excellent screenplay writing, and DHINO's script, which represents the lowest swill of Hollywood output.
Structurally, Die Hard is as elegant a screenplay as they come. It sets up a situation, fully explores its possibilities, and ends satisfyingly, leaving no stone unturned. It models itself on the traditional Western - a genre often featuring a stranger entering a foreign environment who gets caught up in the problems of the 'town' and ends up eliminating the villain and thereby restoring peace before leaving. The script frequently alludes to this debt with 'yipee-kay-yay', 'cowboy' and 'Roy (Rodgers)'. Already the screenplay is anchored to a proven template, even as it applies a modern twist on that formula.
The circularity of plot is furthered with the use of recurring motifs. Things are set up at the beginning - the slamming face-down of the McClane family photo, the limo ride, the Rolex - which all return with a satisfying pay-off towards the end. This creating and closing of the circle makes for very satisfying viewing by creating a solid internal universe for the story, it's based on Chekov's gun ("If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there.") Back To The Future, another endlessly re-watchable modern classic, also adheres heavily to this principle. It bring shape and definition to a story.
DHINO, by contrast, is a sprawling mess which aims to make the adventure country-wide. The other Die Hards had a strong sense of location - skyscraper, airport, New York, with each location having a strong personality in itself, but DHINO overreaches in it's attempt to be 'bigger and better' and loses all sense of shape, and has to resort to compromising the McClane character by having him fly helicopters (it being a recurring motif in the trilogy that McClane hates flying). The playing field is so big there IS no playing field, and McClane's involvement in the scenario is not properly justified. When his daughter enters the mix there IS a reason for his involvement, but the film botches this by having McClane goad the villain to murder her, and by having her unresponsive when Gabriel orders the military to kill her dad, completely betraying her characterisation.
Die Hard's script honours logic. The novel on which the film is based -
sextamental — 10 years ago(September 05, 2015 06:30 AM)
Not even close dude.
Vengeance was an intense, raw, and witty action/thriller for adults that delivered some of the best McClaneisms in the entire series.
DH4 was a corny family-adventure flick preaching the virtues of heroism for the Justin Long little girl fan club and iphone gen nerds.
SPIRAL OUT!..KEEP GOING! -
Soodinum — 10 years ago(September 05, 2015 08:58 AM)
Well it's all subjective. Me, I agree with Bruce Willis.
You can watch an interview he did where Kevin Smith asks him a all about the franchise, and Bruce said he really loved 1, but never really got in to 2 and 3. He said at that point (when there was 4) that it felt as if the franchise had two really strong bookends.
He liked everything about it. I agree with him.
BUT it is true that a lot of the deal with movies is subjective - there are clear exceptions: Spears' Crossroads film, anything by Pauly Shore. They are objectively beep But the rest - different strokes.
I just watched all 5 over Fri/Sat and I did realise I like 3 more than 5, but 4 still is one of the best, for me. -
!!!deleted!!! (26676124) — 10 years ago(September 11, 2015 07:56 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkQTub0Ip98&t=0m21s
Dead or alive, you're cuming with me -
Wuchakk — 10 years ago(September 17, 2015 12:41 PM)
DHINO
Why do you keep referring to "Live Free or Die Hard" as "DHINO"? The only other title it's known by is "Die Hard 4.0." I realize DHINO is an acronym, but I'm not getting what it refers to beyond the obvious first two words.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/ -
Wuchakk — 10 years ago(September 17, 2015 04:50 PM)
Thanks; that explains it.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/ -
Fornicus — 10 years ago(November 25, 2015 03:05 AM)
Just watched it for the first time in years. Good action flick. Ridiculous, sure, but all the Die Hard films are.
Calling it "Die Hard in Name Only" is undoubtedly even more ridiculous, though. Not to mention moronic. Please grow up. -
Drooch — 10 years ago(January 04, 2016 04:29 AM)
You're an apologist for this franchise-raping sht stain of a film. Now read the original post and understand why adjectives like 'ridiculous' and 'moronic' actually describe someone dense enough to put this turd alongside the Die Hard films, such as yourself.