.....and fail miserably!
Have you ever watched a movie where it seems like the only thing the actors on screen succeed in doing is insulting your intelligence. I'm not saying that the Die Hard movies are meant to be mentally challenging in any way but when you do away with virtually every premise that made them an institution, it's a good day to bid them goodbye.
Any die hard fan will agree that the first two movies was where all the appeal lay and the rest we just watched, mostly out of loyalty with a tad bit of curiosity. This last one however has turned me into a disbeliever. For me the biggest appeal of Die Hard was that John Mcclane did indeed 'die hard' and not a 'try hard'. One could see Bruce Willis making an effort to look like he was thinking about his next, foolhardy move, seeing it all turn to shite and then, bruised and battered, he picked up the pieces and went on to do it all over again - all the while not losing his sense of humour and at the end of it all when he staggered out wasted but victorious we all chanted - yippeekayay with him! But to me an even bigger draw of the movies were the bad guys - they weren't idiots (and here again I must refer to several John Travolta movies post his dancing days) and wouldn't just keel over and die, after all it wouldn't be 'die hard' then would it? One can argue that given Bruce's age, would it be realistic for him to fist fight the goons? No it wouldn't so why not let good enough be and not inflict this sorry mess of a movie on the public? Why sully the good name of John Mcclane?
Have you ever watched a movie where it seems like the only thing the actors on screen succeed in doing is insulting your intelligence. I'm not saying that the Die Hard movies are meant to be mentally challenging in any way but when you do away with virtually every premise that made them an institution, it's a good day to bid them goodbye.
Any die hard fan will agree that the first two movies was where all the appeal lay and the rest we just watched, mostly out of loyalty with a tad bit of curiosity. This last one however has turned me into a disbeliever. For me the biggest appeal of Die Hard was that John Mcclane did indeed 'die hard' and not a 'try hard'. One could see Bruce Willis making an effort to look like he was thinking about his next, foolhardy move, seeing it all turn to shite and then, bruised and battered, he picked up the pieces and went on to do it all over again - all the while not losing his sense of humour and at the end of it all when he staggered out wasted but victorious we all chanted - yippeekayay with him! But to me an even bigger draw of the movies were the bad guys - they weren't idiots (and here again I must refer to several John Travolta movies post his dancing days) and wouldn't just keel over and die, after all it wouldn't be 'die hard' then would it? One can argue that given Bruce's age, would it be realistic for him to fist fight the goons? No it wouldn't so why not let good enough be and not inflict this sorry mess of a movie on the public? Why sully the good name of John Mcclane?