Discuss Smrtonosná pasca 4.0
Discuss → Movies → Smrtonosná pasca 4.0 → General
Why Die Hard 4 sucks
posted by DroochSTAFFMOD on February 9, 2017 at 2:10 AM
The best way to understand how poor a film DHINO (DH4/Die Hard In Name Only) 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 fücking 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 was notable for transposing armed combat to the 'urban jungle' of a modern high-rise, and the script maintains this logic of combat. The villains behave logically to achieve their goals, and McClane behaves logically in his responses - this allows for audience engagement because we can put ourselves in McClane's shoes. When he learns of the situation his first reaction is to contact the police, when this fails he activates the fire alarm etc. He does what we would do. In DHINO, McClane provokes and taunts a villain holding a gun to his daughters head - as mentioned, the filmmakers believe this will raise cheers from the kids in the audience, for the rest of us the result is complete dramatic disengagement.
The supporting characters are fully developed in Die Hard's script, with each one being fleshed out with idiosyncrasies. Staurt and de Souza understand that DETAIL is the key to credibility and the characters each express themselves in ways that define them. Argyle 'if your friend's hot to trot, there's a few momma-bears I can hook him up with', Ellis 'Hans, booby, I'm you're white night', Holly 'I know EXACTLY what your idea of our marriage should be', Al 'why don't you wake up and smell what you shovellin'!', Harvey 'as in Helsinki, Sweden', Johnson and Johnson 'no the other one', Karl 'no one kills him but me', Takagi 'Pearl Harbour didn't work out so we got you with tape decks' ALL register as real and are memorable because they are fully defined both in the screenplay and the way McTiernan coaxes nuanced performances from his actors. None of the characters in DHINO, with the possible exception of 'Matt Farrell' is memorable nor properly defined, they are generic cyphers which are quickly forgotten, there is no detail nor definition to their characterisation. This is lazy, unconsidered writing for throwaway entertainment, it's not worthy of the Die Hard series.
McClane himself is VASTLY different in both films. In Die Hard he is fully rounded and, unprecedented in action thrillers, cries as he delivers a message for Al to give to his wife when he expects to die. In DHINO he marches ahead, invulnerable, killing with ease, tactlessly spouting abuse at his enemies while they hold his daughter at gun-point, delivering life-lessons about being a hero. In Die Hard he curses like street-wise cop that he is, in DHINO he can't because of the kids in the audience. Compromises are made at every turn to water and dumb down the material for youngsters. Adding to this insult, Fox have perverted the character into some poster child for the American right - having him awkwardly emote 'it's not a SYSTEM, it's a COUNTRY!' and having him suspiciously chide his teenaged sidekick for questioning the integrity of the media - how convenient, Fox.
The villains. Hans is one of the most idiosyncratic and memorable villains in the history of cinema, virtually every line of his is quotable and relevant to who he is, we love watching him as much as we despise him for murdering the honourable and gentle Mr Takagi. Gabriel is an utterly wet, generic, forgettable, impotent brat who can only watch, angry and frightened, as Robo-McClane marches unstoppably to execute him. Hans is impressively sophisticated, his eloquent jab at corporate greed 'and when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer' is the kind of wonderful writing that would have been instantly nixed by the makers of DHINO for not being dumb enough, if they even understood it themselves, which I sincerely doubt.
This is scratching the surface but should make the point that screenwriting is a craft, that Die Hard is written by masters of that craft who were encouraged to make a 'good' script, and that DHINO was written by someone largely incompetent at that craft who was encouraged to water and dumb down the material by a now-rancid studio that panders to the young and stupid, and is consequently a 'poor' script.
People will be watching Die Hard for years to come, and learning from it's excellent screenplay. The same cannot be said for the godawful, cynical and utterly forgettable DHINO.
Reply by Egon1982
on March 2, 2017 at 6:23 AM
And you agree Drooch that this one failed to capture the same lightning in a bottle like the original trilogy?
Reply by sati_84
on March 2, 2017 at 7:59 AM
Well, Drooch, I saw this movie once, when it came out 10 years ago, and... I liked it. I thought it was almost as good as the trilogy before.
I can't support my liking the film with any counterarguments, I'd need a rewatch for that. Despite all this, I very very much liked your post. It was entertaining and your arguments seem substantial, so I'll return to this post when I rewatch DH4.
Now what I would really like you to do is to slam on A Good Day to Die Hard too, because that is just a horrible movie and it's just unforgivable that it's called a Die Hard movie when so cleraly it's not. Please do that!
Reply by Drooch
on March 2, 2017 at 7:46 PM
Worse, it took a shít in the bottle.
Reply by MrRadical
on March 2, 2017 at 8:03 PM
Disagreed, I really liked this movie. The only one I didn't like was the last one which was so much worse than the rest of them.
Reply by Drooch
on March 2, 2017 at 8:07 PM
No problem, here's what I think of A Good Day To Die Hard...
The true enemy of John McClane - more villainous than Hans Gruber, more ruthless than Colonel Stewart, more cynical than Simon G - is Bruce Willis. The man's cells have replaced themselves and turned this Hollywood legend into a lazy, greedy, hateful man whose ego has become a massive, baldheaded wrecking ball that destroys nearly every project that has the misfortune of having to deal with it.
Willis insisted on the 'son' angle, and it's clear to see why - he gets to take a back seat, let someone else do the heavy lifting, but still pick up the fat cheque at the end. Tom Cruise may be mad as a biscuit, but at least he cares about the quality of his Mission Impossible franchise and respects its fans - carefully picking talented directors and encouraging them to flourish artistically and push the boundaries. Willis is the exact opposite. If you love Die Hard, he hates you. Kevin Smith recites a story about a truck driver shouting 'Hey John McClane!' as he drove past the set of Cop Out. Willis told Smith 'I hate the Die Hard fans the most' as he turned and walked away, leaving Smith alone on the roadside.
Willis, a star at 33 thanks to Die Hard, went on to try many different genres and give himself to more risqué projects in the 90's, even having a major part in that cinema re-defining indie classic - Pulp Fiction. How that star has dimmed. Willis readily climbed between the sheets with Fox's worst execs when it came to assembling this shockingly bad film, which genuinely re-defines how atrocious studio filmmaking can actually be. They went about picking a director...
When you watch a movie, while being entertained by the events onscreen, one can sense the presence of the storyteller. With Die Hard, John McTiernan's trademark wit, sophistication, artistic integrity and storytelling verve simmers underneath every frame.
With AGDTDH, you can feel the overbearing presence of those greedy Fox executives, lazy Willis, and the special child they plucked from the rankest sewer of Hollywood to direct their abortion of a film - John Moore. A corpulent Irishman whose track record of blandness and zero integrity made him the ideal replacement for the last hack they employed to kill, gut and rape this franchise - Len Wiseman.
Working from Skip Woods' screenplay, which feels like something sketched on a napkin, by an Orangutan, Moore's challenge is to basically distract us from the utter lack of substance or coherence with a 'stylish' aesthetic; and we all know what that means - yep, ridiculous levels of tinting (an ugly bluish/grey this time), unnaturally boosted contrast, and choppy WTF editing. The result is an endless, deranged music video, where there was once storytelling. I've been made to sit through chick flicks with more backbone than this hollow soufflé of 'style'. NOTHING connects emotionally.
The moments of restraint in the Die Hard trilogy, which deepen character and relationship, are exactly what give the explosive moments their punch. AGDTDH has no such moments. These wafer-thin cyphers are not real, not human, and so their fates are utterly irrelevant.
McClane suffers the most. As if to make the audience actively dislike the greatest action hero ever, Willis and co. pervert the character into a racist, arrogant jerk. McClane always represented that part of us that does what's right in the face of massive oppressive odds, McTiernan described him as the mouse that gives the finger to the eagle that descends upon him. McClane is now the eagle, albeit a roaring demented one, who tramples over helpless bystanders as he feeds off his emotions. He has become the oppressive force that destroys the innocent, the very people he used to protect. Smacking a Russian man in the face as he steals his car, at one point.
As with DHINO (Die Hard In Name Only/DH4), Fox have retooled McClane into a poster child for the American Right - a flag-waving, pig-stupid, aggressive xenophobe whose greatest virtue, the one that transcends all others is... being American. McTiernan must have been turning in his cell.
So we have Jai Courtney as Jack McClane driving the film (as his insane father follows, leaving an unnecessary wake of destruction behind him). Courtney's a capable actor, and does what he can with the stink-script that is always working against him. His character is the only thing remotely real, as with Justin Long in DHINO, but that's not enough. His character is unlikeable, stroppy and conceited.
Tonally, the film is a mess. It cannot handle the serious elements, and has no fun with the rest. Die Hard managed to be an utterly engrossing thriller with a joyful tone on top, AGDTDH is a badly made, joyless bore for it's entire mercifully short runtime. Overall, the film is a parasite feeding off the mythology of McClane while excreting xenophobic, idiotic, flag-waving bile of the worst kind. A film that hates its audience.
The only interesting question is - does this stink more than DHINO?
DHINO was the film that killed the franchise in 2007 with it's unforgivable dumbing/watering down of the series into a bland, broad-appeal kids adventure. It pulled a Robocop 3 on Die Hard after a long 12-year wait since the awesome Vengeance. Let's put DHINO and, I think we can all agree on this title for AGDTDH -DHINO 2head to head and see who comes out steaming more...
Villains - DHINO 2 has three villains - Sebastian Koch, his daughter, and some Russian guy who dances, then gets betrayed by the others. This trio of evil are badly rendered and barely summon any menace between them, but at least they provide some entertainment with their double-crossing and messed up father/daughter dynamic (a dark mirror of the father/son McClane duo) compared with Olyphant's 'Starbucks manager on a particularly itchy morning' Gabriel in DHINO, who you actually pity as Robo-McClane marches unstoppably to execute him. Gabriel is finally offed in an uninventive sequence in which McClane shoots through his own shoulder. The DHINO 2 villains are killed by a headshot, an evil father being minced in the rotor-blades of his evil daughter's helicopter (quite sick, in a good way) and her subsequent exploding in said helicopter ala Simon Gruber. DHINO loses.
Violence - Easy one here. DHINO 2's only redeeming quality is that it went for an R rating after the tsunami of rightful hatred aimed at Fox for going PG-13 with DHINO. That said, DHINO 2 is really just PG-13 Plus, with a headshot, some beatings and a spot of blood here and there. DHINO loses.
McClane - both films retool McClane into a mascot for Fox's political agenda, preying on young and stupid viewers. In DHINO 2 he's actually allowed to curse (DHINO famously censored his catch-phrase), and he doesn't goad a villain into murdering his child as he did in DHINO, but he is relegated into second position as a violent, raging retard. It's damn close, but DHINO 2 loses this one.
Writing - Bomback vs Woods. Ugh, it's like watching two squealing ADHD fat kids go at each other with knives. Bomback failed in so many ways - the neutered language, the sprawling East Coast playing field, the lapses in character logic, the shrieking stupidity of having drivers accelerate into the darkness in a blacked out tunnel, the disgusting scenes of McClane dispensing Disney-dad advice to Justin Long. Still, for all his incompetence, Bomback doesn't plumb the depths of complete ineptness and sheer insanity of Woods' dull, flat, dumb-as-hell scribblings, which feature radiation-resistant McClane's amongst a catalogue of fücking stupid ideas, and a now barking-mad John McClane. DHINO 2 loses.
Direction - Wiseman's total failure is made palatable by one factor - he shoots the action with a degree of clarity, in long takes that don't run away from the battle choreography. The same can't be said for Moore, whose MTV editing brings the greatest action series ever down to the absolute worst in action cinema. As storytellers both directors are equally inept. Weigh it all up and, once again, DHINO 2 loses.
Action - with DHINO 2 there was an attempt to atone for the bloodlessness of DHINO, as well as DHINO's utterly absurd action scenes, which culminated in McClane sitting in a static truck on a suspended chunk of highway, having a military Harrier jet pounding him head-on with giant bullets and missiles, missing him completely, then McCLane somehow jumps onto the jet, surfs it, and leaps 100's of feet onto another chunk of crumbling highway, and dusts himself off before walking away un-wounded. DHINO 2 features no such silliness. Yes, there is some crazy shït involving dangling off a helicopter at the end, and some ludicrous jumps that happen to involve soft landings, but it's far more restrained. DHINO loses.
Sidekick - Justin Long's young techy nerd is there to appeal to teens in the audience, as with every other creative decision in DHINO, but he at least has a modicum of charm and wit. Jack McClane is a wanker, and he replaces John McClane as the central action figure. This is unforgivable. DHINO 2 loses.
Franchise Damage- DHINO is a family-fun-packed, beefy yellow turd with bits of ugly green-tinting. That turd took another turd - an acrid black and red worm that stinks to high heaven, aka DHINO 2. That said, it was DHINO that did the damage, it was the Aliens vs Predator, Terminator Salvation, Robocop 3 of the Die Hard series. It tries to make a new trilogy involving the 'McClane family' and sold Die Hard out to ADHD kids. DHINO 2, for all its crimes, some of which are worse than those of DHINO, actually attempts to rectify some of the damage caused by DHINO. It's a failed, unworthy effort, but there's no denying that all this whole goddam mess was caused by DHINO. DHINO loses.
So, it's pretty damn close. A draw in fact if we count up the sores, but the combination of the fact that DHINO caused this whole debacle by planting the axe firmly into McClane's head (before DHINO 2 raped his corpse stupid), and for 'Yippee-Kye-Yay Mother (gunshot!).., DHINO STILL LOSES.
Reply by MrRadical
on March 2, 2017 at 8:14 PM
I may disagree with you on Live Free or Die Hard but I gotta say, I really love your long posts. If you'd make a review for every movie here, I'd make sure to read them all.
Reply by ComputerBlue
on March 3, 2017 at 1:14 AM
I've seen the original trilogy at least 10 times each. Saw this once and had no desire to watch it again since. Completely unnecessary.
Reply by sati_84
on March 3, 2017 at 2:18 AM
In my opinion, Die Hard 5 is at least a million times worse than DH4, as it's utterly dull in every aspect, while DH4 was while being totally unrealistic, it still was tremendous fun for me to watch.