Die Hard movies pretty much set the bar for action movies in the nineties. They are over the top, based almost entirely on the action, and aren't meant to be taken too seriously. But with the advent of the newest movie, it is easy to see that their time has passed. John McClain is probably ready to be retired.
The first pits a single cop, John McClain, against a group of terrorists/robbers. The main bad guy, played by a very stylish Alan Rickman, is the perfect example of the over the top, pure evil bad guy that we like to see fall out of a window at the end of the movie. What is great is that even though John has to fight everyone on his own, he spends the whole movie trying to get anyone else to come and help him. This gives the movie a sense of realism, as well as telling us that John doesn't think he can really take out everyone on his own, even though that is what ends up happening, though it does happen largely through luck.
The second movie takes place in and around an airport. It gets a little silly, as John again just happens to be there and the bad guys have a plan that is evil yet probably not as well thought out as it could have been. In the end it is foiled by a single man on a runway with a torch.
The third movie encompasses an entire city. This time John gets roped in by the choice of the bad guys instead of just happening to be around for it. And even though the action gets a little more out of control in this movie, it is still in the realm of believable for an action movie. It also allows Samuel Jackson to show up and constantly complain about having to deal with John.
But the forth movie ends up having an entire nation at siege. And it doesn't make a lot of sense how that happens. What makes less sense is that this cop from New York suddenly seems to have super powers. Yes, he seemed nearly indestructible in the first three movies, but now he is able to jump out of a moving car that he has just turned into a rocket to destroy a helicopter and get up and walk away.
These movies work best when they are done a little smaller. Why not have John go up against a small group of determined individuals on smaller scale? Why not let him fight by hiding in the air ducts and sneaking around with a stolen assault rifle? This is why people fell in love with the series, not just the over the top nature of them.
The biggest difference in the movies is the difference in the way movies are being made. Super hero movies have upped the ante on action, and special effects have gotten a lot better. It isn't that the filmmakers can't make a good Die Hard movie, it is simply that they are able to make a movie that is more about the flashy effects than about the basic idea of one man taking on a larger group of baddies.
Die Hard movies are never going to go away. People will still want to watch them for many years to come. There just comes a time when a new one can't do justice to the franchise anymore. John McClain needs to retire and Bruce Willis can do other outlandish action movies in its place, and that way everyone will be happy. - 40729
The first pits a single cop, John McClain, against a group of terrorists/robbers. The main bad guy, played by a very stylish Alan Rickman, is the perfect example of the over the top, pure evil bad guy that we like to see fall out of a window at the end of the movie. What is great is that even though John has to fight everyone on his own, he spends the whole movie trying to get anyone else to come and help him. This gives the movie a sense of realism, as well as telling us that John doesn't think he can really take out everyone on his own, even though that is what ends up happening, though it does happen largely through luck.
The second movie takes place in and around an airport. It gets a little silly, as John again just happens to be there and the bad guys have a plan that is evil yet probably not as well thought out as it could have been. In the end it is foiled by a single man on a runway with a torch.
The third movie encompasses an entire city. This time John gets roped in by the choice of the bad guys instead of just happening to be around for it. And even though the action gets a little more out of control in this movie, it is still in the realm of believable for an action movie. It also allows Samuel Jackson to show up and constantly complain about having to deal with John.
But the forth movie ends up having an entire nation at siege. And it doesn't make a lot of sense how that happens. What makes less sense is that this cop from New York suddenly seems to have super powers. Yes, he seemed nearly indestructible in the first three movies, but now he is able to jump out of a moving car that he has just turned into a rocket to destroy a helicopter and get up and walk away.
These movies work best when they are done a little smaller. Why not have John go up against a small group of determined individuals on smaller scale? Why not let him fight by hiding in the air ducts and sneaking around with a stolen assault rifle? This is why people fell in love with the series, not just the over the top nature of them.
The biggest difference in the movies is the difference in the way movies are being made. Super hero movies have upped the ante on action, and special effects have gotten a lot better. It isn't that the filmmakers can't make a good Die Hard movie, it is simply that they are able to make a movie that is more about the flashy effects than about the basic idea of one man taking on a larger group of baddies.
Die Hard movies are never going to go away. People will still want to watch them for many years to come. There just comes a time when a new one can't do justice to the franchise anymore. John McClain needs to retire and Bruce Willis can do other outlandish action movies in its place, and that way everyone will be happy. - 40729
About the Author:
Because it's so funny, Old School is a definite must-see film. New Movie Rental Sadly, the victim of the 1970s Entity attacks has long since disappeared. One program that really impressed me is the freshwater one.
No comments:
Post a Comment