There are action films and then there is Die Hard. A special film franchise that I have extremely fond memories of watching while growing up as a teenager. Sure, they were certificate 18's but were they really that graphic? Just a bit of f-bomb swearing, which all teenagers hear and lots of action and violence, nothing worse than what I was playing in video games. John McClane was my ultimate hero, the action pieces were stunning and the villains memorable, even charming in their own evil way. A great movie makes you love the heroes and villains equally, and Die Hard 1-4 did that perfectly.
Let me start by saying I love all the previous Die Hard films, even the fourth, and I'll quite happily re-watch them anytime of the year. They are the kind of the films that if you're flicking through the channels and you notice it's on, you watch them. Die Hard 1 had the excellent Alan Rickman and Bruce jumping off the Nakatomi Plaza; Die Hard 2 had the epic plane explosions, while Die Hard 3 had Jeremy Irons, Samuel L Jackson and a huge container ship exploding. Heck, I even loved Die Hard 4 with the car taking out a helicopter and the fighter plane chasing down Bruce at the end. They all have that little extra edge and character quality over other action films.
This fifth instalment was just generic rubbish, loud with slow motion action shots and corny one-liners. There was no meaningful dialogue and I didn't care about the plot, it was just rushed and the feel of a movie shot to make some money. No! You don't make another Die Hard, Star Wars or Indiana Jones for example, unless the script is at least going to match up to the glory of the originals. These films are just too special, but they do anyway and surprise surprise, they were all lesser films compared to the original trilogy. I was so disappointed with Die Hard 5 and just plain bored by the middle of it. The action scenes had no effect upon me whatsoever and there wasn't even any hand-to-hand fight scenes, just a load of machine gun fire and even the big set piece at the end was ruined by cheesy slow motion. The villain was dull, the script cliched and I don't even remember the bad guy's name. It just had the feel of Mission Impossible 2 with the useless slow motion, although it's a worse action film than Mission Impossible 2 for sure and that's saying something. There was never any sense of danger or purpose that you got with the other films and I just didn't care about the outcome. I stuck with it because I refuse to walk out of a cinema, especially when the tickets are near a tenner now. If you're a fan of Die Hard, you'll still probably want to go because that's what Die Hard fans do but you'll likely feel just as strongly negative about it as I.
Rating: 0 out of 10. I won't be buying it on DVD and I doubt I'll watch it when it's on television in a few years. Still love Bruce Willis though and the originals, I'm just insulted this film was allowed to be made!
Let me start by saying I love all the previous Die Hard films, even the fourth, and I'll quite happily re-watch them anytime of the year. They are the kind of the films that if you're flicking through the channels and you notice it's on, you watch them. Die Hard 1 had the excellent Alan Rickman and Bruce jumping off the Nakatomi Plaza; Die Hard 2 had the epic plane explosions, while Die Hard 3 had Jeremy Irons, Samuel L Jackson and a huge container ship exploding. Heck, I even loved Die Hard 4 with the car taking out a helicopter and the fighter plane chasing down Bruce at the end. They all have that little extra edge and character quality over other action films.
This fifth instalment was just generic rubbish, loud with slow motion action shots and corny one-liners. There was no meaningful dialogue and I didn't care about the plot, it was just rushed and the feel of a movie shot to make some money. No! You don't make another Die Hard, Star Wars or Indiana Jones for example, unless the script is at least going to match up to the glory of the originals. These films are just too special, but they do anyway and surprise surprise, they were all lesser films compared to the original trilogy. I was so disappointed with Die Hard 5 and just plain bored by the middle of it. The action scenes had no effect upon me whatsoever and there wasn't even any hand-to-hand fight scenes, just a load of machine gun fire and even the big set piece at the end was ruined by cheesy slow motion. The villain was dull, the script cliched and I don't even remember the bad guy's name. It just had the feel of Mission Impossible 2 with the useless slow motion, although it's a worse action film than Mission Impossible 2 for sure and that's saying something. There was never any sense of danger or purpose that you got with the other films and I just didn't care about the outcome. I stuck with it because I refuse to walk out of a cinema, especially when the tickets are near a tenner now. If you're a fan of Die Hard, you'll still probably want to go because that's what Die Hard fans do but you'll likely feel just as strongly negative about it as I.
Rating: 0 out of 10. I won't be buying it on DVD and I doubt I'll watch it when it's on television in a few years. Still love Bruce Willis though and the originals, I'm just insulted this film was allowed to be made!
Oh man. I need to rewatch the first teo and i don't even think i have seen three or four. Can't bear Bruce Willis or Alan Rickman; both such versitale actors.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts. I will plan to avoid the fifth installment.