Die Hard 4.0: A Second Opinion

July 18th, 2007 in Action, Movies, Overrated?, Reviews

After reading many a review, including Frank’s, I could only deduce that the new Die Hard sequel was more than just a pleasant surprise. The San Fran Chronicle, for example, called it “the summer’s best action blockbuster”. So, I gave in, went to see it. And I can only remark on how utterly disappointed I am, not only in the film, but in the critics who praised it.

But, let’s start off with why Die Hard 4.0 is considered good. In a way, it does set itself aside from most recent action movies. There’s certainly a wit to it, keeping in line with the John McClane character. After one particularly difficult battle, McClane calls the bad guy to postulate that he must be out of henchmen by now, and whether he should dial 1800 HENCHMEN for more. There’s plenty of banter between McClane and his new sidekick, computer nerd Matt Farrell (played by Justin Long), as McClane tries to comprehend the world of computers while trading punches with trained assassins.

And then there’s the plot. It’s nice to see an action film that does try to engage with modern times. The story involves a plot to cause complete chaos in the USA by hacking into all major national networks, whether it’s road traffic lights, gas pipes, mobile phone networks, or TV stations. Helmed by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), a group of assassins and hackers plan on using the chaos to steal the country’s wealth. It’s a nice idea, and there’s even criticism of the USA’s inability to comprehend secure networks and computer systems, as we soon discover. McClane fits into this as he picks up a hacker who is set to be assassinated for his knowledge of the hacking project, but of course old McClane puts and end to that.

But my real problem with the film is with what everyone goes to see it for, the action. What I adore about the Die Hard films is that McClane was distancing himself away from the typical action heroes of the 80s (Arnie and Sly), who ploughed through enemies with barely a scratch on their bulging biceps. McClane, however, was vulnerable. He bled, a lot. In the first film he was barefoot, and had to stop occasionally to pick chunks of glass from his feet. This contributed to a realistic image of the character, thus making the action more real, and ultimately more exciting. Die Hard 4, however, is the opposite. Here, mig jets negotiate under motorways, pumping bullets into McClane’s truck without McClane being too bothered. A huge car crash involves a car flying through the air and about to land on our heroes, only for it to be miraculously deflected. And of course, McClane defeats a helicopter by driving a car up a ramp and smashing it into the chopper (“I was out of bullets“, McClane quips). While the first films emphasised realism, this film may as well have been set on an alien planet, as characters get beaten, shot, knocked off buildings, blown up, and hit by cars, and survive for yet another round. This is not the Die Hard I love and know.

Secondly, while McClane still has the smart-ass lines, everything else about the characters is pretty poor. Again the first films emphasised a sense of desperation. McClane was thrown into situations he wasn’t in control of, and he scrambled his way out of them. Who can forget the brilliant ending of Die Hard 2, where McClane gets the crap kicked out of him on top of a moving plane? He gets knocked off, but by chance he opens the fuel tank, and sets the gas alight, in a Looney Tunes moment. The point is that he isn’t in control, he’s not the typical hero, and once again that makes him more real, and more likeable. In Die Hard 4, McClane is always on top of the situation. At the very beginning, when he rescues Farrell, McClane spies the armed assassins ascending the stairs, and instantly chucks a fire extinguisher at them, shooting it to create an explosion. Yes, McClane has been through 3 movies of gun and fist battles, but considering he’s a lot older, you’d think he’d be a little less prepared for such scenes. Countless other examples litter the movie.

The supporting cast are by far the worst in the franchise. Olyphant plays a boring computer nerd with no charisma or style. Farrell is an alright sidekick, but can be annoying at times. Kevin Smith appears as a fellow hacker, and is mildly amusing. But the greatest disappointment is the “cop buddy”. The first film had self-pitying cop Al Powell, who bonds with McClane over a walkie-talkie, and plays an integral part in the film’s closing minutes. Die Hard 2 had foul-mouth McClane-hater Dennis Franz. Here, we have the excellent Chris Curtis playing a FBI techno-head who is utterly lost. His role amounts to turning up too late at the end.

Ultimately, I can only attribute the good response to this film due to its witty banter, and the fact that it’s not as awful as some recent action movies. But in the world of Die Hard, this film has lost the plot, so to speak, and is so overblown as to insult the man who was once my childhood hero.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Stumble it! / Bookmark: