Why was Die Hard 4 and 5 so poor?
linkinpark875
Posts: 29,686
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I watched the third the other night and it reminds me of Taken 3. If Taken 3 was a decent action film why did the Die Hard movies seem low key after the 3rd? For me I think they made a mistake going for Jai Courtney in this movie. It also lacked a larger support cast like the early ones. Seeming they will do a Die Hard 6..
0
Comments
Quite...though I would agree with the OP as far as Diehard 4 and 5 being pretty rubbish.
A Good Day To Die Hard is horrendous though.
The films started to go a more comedy route.
Maybe where the later films went wrong is they were straight-ahead action films (and not very good ones either) rather than being character-led dramas that just happened to have a lot of action in them.
they normally always remove the scene in the fight in the lift where he blows the big guys brains out.
4 is OK, but I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it. 5 is quite simply God-awful. Seriously bad.
I don't hold out much hope for the planned 6th instalment / Jai Courtney taking over the franchise.
4 is a decent action movie (regardless of whether it was toned down a bit too much), 5 is utterly terrible in every way.
The rating makes no difference whatsoever to whether a movie is good or bad. The "unrated" Die Hard 4.0 is just the same film with some CG blood splatters and the F-word dubbed in where possible.
I personally don't want a 6. After 4 and especially 5 I don't trust them that it will be any good.
DH5 is the first one that really sucks as it dissolved into a humourless, predictable, extremely average action movie.
Although, reading this piece from the Guardian, there does appear to be a degree of hope.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2013/may/03/die-hard-6-willis-balboa
This part did make me smile though ..
Bruce Willis has been doing some low key movies in the past few years Surrogates and recently Vice I enjoyed these movies though.
The Red 1 and 2 films were quite poor. I reckon Liam Neeson is getting the better action scripts right now.
Bruce has done films like Looper but again this was poor.
Totally agree.
I can watch 4 and still enjoy it, but I can pretty much guarantee that I'll never watch 5 again. It took me 3 attempts to get through it the first time so I won't be wasting my time again.
I enjoyed 4 as splashy popcorn fodder, 2 & 3 never really click, and 5 a dismal cash-grab. As franchises go, it really is all about the first.
5 was average,but i still enjoyed it enough.
For low key movies I would have picked 'The Cold Light of Day' and 'Moonrise Kingdom' rather than 'Surrogates'.
As for Red 1 and 2 they were essentially comedy action movies sending up the action movie genre and doing it rather well. Neeson has made a mixed bag of action movies 'Taken' and 'Unknown' being rather good and 'Non-Stop' and 'Taken 3' being rather bad.
Looper is actually one of the better, smarter sci-fi movies of recent times.
Vice is one of the worst movies he has ever made...and he barely even appears in it anyway.
And you prefer this to Looper?
Yes Looper was one of those action movies that should never have been made. Loads of hype but a let down like Cold Light of Day, Total Recall remake, Parker, The Gambler, Safe House, Maze Runner, Argo, Crank 2, Most Wanted Man..I would add them to the junk pile DVD's.
In my opinion films like The Adjustment Bureau, Elysium, Unstoppable, Unknown, Last Stand, Source Code, In Time, Limitless, Run All Night, Escape Plan, Edge of Tomorrow, Non Stop, The Equalizer, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, The Worlds End, Jack Reacher ect..
All better movies yet despite decent casts like Matt Damon and Tom Cruise they never got the press they deserved. Argo is the biggest example as it won an Oscar. Total Recall was a disaster of a film. Looper had lots of action sequences and lacked a strong story line. It was neither sci-fi or action was quite a consuming film.