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 of the movies has John going against a charmingly evil Alan Rickman in a building in downtown LA. He tries to get help the whole time, and it is easy to see that he is just a man who doesn't really want to be where he is and is trying to get someone else to come over and help him out the whole time. Eventually he just has to do it himself, but he tries to get help. And that is important to his character.
The second movie gets more outlandish. It takes place in an airport and once again our hero is thrown into something just because he happened to be in the right place at the right time. The premise works, and he is able to save the day, but there are a few more elements of the completely far-fetched that start to pop up. Still, the movie isn't outside the realm of possibility by too much.
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.
The fourth movie takes on most of the nation. John goes from being a cop on a certain beat to having to try to be everywhere and stop a national crises. He also has seemed to gain super powers, going from a guy who is hard to kill to a guy that can take out a helicopter by speeding through a tunnel. Of course he gets up and walks away after doing that, and the movie starts to lose some of its mystic.
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. - 40730
The first of the movies has John going against a charmingly evil Alan Rickman in a building in downtown LA. He tries to get help the whole time, and it is easy to see that he is just a man who doesn't really want to be where he is and is trying to get someone else to come over and help him out the whole time. Eventually he just has to do it himself, but he tries to get help. And that is important to his character.
The second movie gets more outlandish. It takes place in an airport and once again our hero is thrown into something just because he happened to be in the right place at the right time. The premise works, and he is able to save the day, but there are a few more elements of the completely far-fetched that start to pop up. Still, the movie isn't outside the realm of possibility by too much.
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.
The fourth movie takes on most of the nation. John goes from being a cop on a certain beat to having to try to be everywhere and stop a national crises. He also has seemed to gain super powers, going from a guy who is hard to kill to a guy that can take out a helicopter by speeding through a tunnel. Of course he gets up and walks away after doing that, and the movie starts to lose some of its mystic.
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. - 40730
About the Author:
The PSP also features a headphone and microphone jack. Online Films It has been said that expensive Wedding Cakes do not get people dancing! Although his best friend Jack (Donal Logue) tells him its time to move on, David cant seem to get over her passing.
No comments:
Post a Comment