I watched Live Free or Die Hard. The action was atrocious, but it was exactly as expected from the trailers. IT was furthered by the ridiculous actions of the side characters. The scene in which a jet flies beneath an overpass just to go at McClane head on might make sense if one of the villains was controlling the plane. Most of the stupid action is the result of the desperation of the main characters. In desperation they can apparently do things no one would have expected of them. This was how I justified it to myself, anyway. This is why the jet was so terrible. The pilot who is deceived to think that McClane is a terrorist decides to fly down to the level of a western showdown just because he can. Mere seconds beforehand, we saw that he has missiles. He uses one of four, and then just gives up and attempts some insane flying which puts him at a severe disadvantage. His actions just don't make sense.
The characters did have genuine development, however, they were terribly conceived and acted. Every character was designed to be a clich. The hacker guy has to learn that outside of his bedroom, his actions have consequences. He has to win his way onto the good side by proving his moral standing, which has never meshed well with the hacker character. This character type is designed for a noir-esque world where no one can be trusted. He just doesn't make sense in such a patriotic movie. His development seems forced and incongruous with the character type. It is important to note that they never try to justify America's actions, just its presence. Which makes for an odd film. It claims that when America is threatened it is the job of every American to do what is necessary to protect her. This is not a political move, it is a humanitarian one. However, you need to insert politics eventually, especially when one is watching it outside of the United States. If attacking a country, and causing thousands of deaths is wrong, than how could you possibly justify America's actions? When the economy, culture and lives of Americans are threatened, they are perfectly justified in standing up and defending it. When people protest America's infringement upon the rights of its neighbours however, America is justified again. Is the movie trying to make this parallel, subtly questioning American policy? The movie is not exactly designed for subtlety. I am willing to acknowledge the possibility that they put that degree of thought into their story, but I doubt it.
Besides that, it just wasn't Die Hard. McClane is supposed to be the man on the inside who nobody trusts or believes in. The FBI has always represented a corrupt force who can't see the faces of the corpses, just count their monetary value. Here, however, he has the full backing of the surviving government. The movie was just too damned patriotic. On a similar note, McClane is usually forced to make do with his inadequate surroundings. Here the world is his oyster. He could go to any armory and pick up any weapon.
At the end, John has to acknowledge the heroics of the hacker. He is the western hero making way for the cyberpunk antihero. But the whole thing was thrust into that confusing happy world where the government is our friend. This is an atmosphere which doesn't work for either of these character types.
The movie was better than I thought it would be, but it just had a lot of problems and, above all, it just wasn't Die Hard. 4/10
The characters did have genuine development, however, they were terribly conceived and acted. Every character was designed to be a clich. The hacker guy has to learn that outside of his bedroom, his actions have consequences. He has to win his way onto the good side by proving his moral standing, which has never meshed well with the hacker character. This character type is designed for a noir-esque world where no one can be trusted. He just doesn't make sense in such a patriotic movie. His development seems forced and incongruous with the character type. It is important to note that they never try to justify America's actions, just its presence. Which makes for an odd film. It claims that when America is threatened it is the job of every American to do what is necessary to protect her. This is not a political move, it is a humanitarian one. However, you need to insert politics eventually, especially when one is watching it outside of the United States. If attacking a country, and causing thousands of deaths is wrong, than how could you possibly justify America's actions? When the economy, culture and lives of Americans are threatened, they are perfectly justified in standing up and defending it. When people protest America's infringement upon the rights of its neighbours however, America is justified again. Is the movie trying to make this parallel, subtly questioning American policy? The movie is not exactly designed for subtlety. I am willing to acknowledge the possibility that they put that degree of thought into their story, but I doubt it.
Besides that, it just wasn't Die Hard. McClane is supposed to be the man on the inside who nobody trusts or believes in. The FBI has always represented a corrupt force who can't see the faces of the corpses, just count their monetary value. Here, however, he has the full backing of the surviving government. The movie was just too damned patriotic. On a similar note, McClane is usually forced to make do with his inadequate surroundings. Here the world is his oyster. He could go to any armory and pick up any weapon.
At the end, John has to acknowledge the heroics of the hacker. He is the western hero making way for the cyberpunk antihero. But the whole thing was thrust into that confusing happy world where the government is our friend. This is an atmosphere which doesn't work for either of these character types.
The movie was better than I thought it would be, but it just had a lot of problems and, above all, it just wasn't Die Hard. 4/10