die hard 4.0

I have to say I wasn't expecting much from Die Hard 4.0.

The first Die Hard movie is an absolute classic. Indeed, it's certainly one of the best action films ever.

A big part of what makes it so good is that Willis takes a real pounding. Sure he wins, but he only just wins. He always has to react to situations and improvise solutions, rarely going in with a proper plan.

It also featured a great bad guy and a great supporting cast - most notably in the form of the beat cop on the other end of a walkie-talkie.

The second film was not so good. They ramped up the action, but they also failed to deliver a truly worthwhile villain. And they made a really big mistake, crashing a plane full of innocent victims with Willis unable to stop them.

The third film was a lot better. The villain was good and his plan was pretty clever. There was a also great sidekick again (weirdly, in the form of Samuel L Jackson, but it works). They also ramped the action up again - unfortunately to the extent that some of the stuff was a little odd. I seem to recall something like a huge slide down a metal wire that would have shredded Willis's hands, for example.

But the point is that somehow it still worked - the plot and characters were strong enough.

The same is pretty much true of the fourth one.

There are some things that don't quite hang true action-wise, but still, overall, it hangs together.

The worst offender on the action sequence front is when Bruce is attacked by an F35 Jet Fighter. He's driving a big rig truck and the really implausible bit is that the arsenal carried by the F35 would just obliterate the truck with no survivors. I mean, this is gear designed to take out hardened military targets - a big rig is like a small paper cup by comparison.

Still, if you suspend your disbelief a bit then it's still a fun sequence. I think actually what helps here is how it's been shot - there's a bit of tendency to go hand-held style nowadays and while it helps in certain things, in big action films it often feels more like a hindrance than a help to me.

If shit's blowing up I want to see it blowing up properly, not be confused and distracted by the camera jerking all over the place.

Anyway, the key things that work in Die Hard 4.0 are the characters. With the possible exception of the main bad guy, all the characters are enjoyable. A particular nod of appreciation has to go to Kevin Smith, who seems to be developing into something of a fine actor by all accounts. Certainly he pumped out what was a horrible quantity of expositional dialogue in a way that was both believable and convincing - no easy task.

The side-kick role of a hacker nerd is also well realised, even if they do tend to fall into some of the old nerds on film traps I've often bemoaned. McClane's feisty arse-kicking daughter was also a very nice touch.

The weak-point was the main bad guy. Which isn't to say it was badly acted or anything, it just seemed a bit arch to me. For one thing there was an implication of some sort of moral ambiguity to the character, but this wasn't backed up by how he was written/depicted.

I'm trying to avoid spoilers, so let's just say in the background to the film there's a suggestion he may be doing what he's doing to 'prove a point'. But then his actions, how he behaves, how he deals with his own minions - all that comes across more like he's a typical boo-hiss style bad guy.

Also, when the twist comes it's not actually all that big a twist. Indeed, it's exactly the same twist that they always have, in that it's really all about the money. The problem there is that part of what the bad guy is doing is totally trashing the US economy, so what he steals would surely become worthless wouldn't it?