Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux
But seriously, it's not like the Die Hard movies are Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. They are action flicks. Do the movies have to remind you of the others? As long as it's john McLaine kicking ass, that's all that matters.
What continuity did the other die hard movies have? They all had Bruce willis and they all had a black sidekick. Anything else? #2 had nothing to do with the Grubers. #3 had nothing to do with his wife.
So is it just because there's no black sidekick?
I know about the ratings difference, so maybe that's what you're talking about. Is it more stylized violence, as opposed to realistic? Not enough F-bombs?
I'll give my full opinion after I see it, which I definitely will.
|
Yeah, too me, the movies have to remind me of the others, that's the point of calling it a Die Hard movie. The thing that makes the Die Hard movies different from other action movies is John McClane. The whole approach to his character in the 4th was off. In the other movies, he's in a joking mood most of the time, even while in intense situations. It's also the one-liners he gives out, there was maybe one one-liner in the 4th. It wasn't necessarily the PG-13 rating, just how they did his character (although a couple of F-bombs might have helped.
Another thing that i didn't like about the 4th is all the other characters. Something else that made the other Die Hards a little more enjoyable is the other characters in the movies. Rather it be the villans, the villan's sidekicks, McClane's sidekicks, the reporter from the first 2 movies, other cops, etc., they had other characters that made the movies more fun to watch. The only interesting character in the 4th was Justin Long's.
But like i said, it was a decent action movie, but a bad Die Hard movie.