Because WordPress chokes on the comments, I’m referring any further comments on my Die Hard 4.0 review to this entry.
About Me
This is Binary Bonsai, the online journal of Michael Heilemann — a Danish expat Interface Director at Squarespace, ex-Computer Game Developer and Film Lover — coming to you out of New York. It contains thoughts on games, interface design, movies, books, science fiction, Star Wars and various other subjects as befits the author, who is available for comment on Twitter.
Credits
Hosted by the unparalleled and phenomenal Media Temple
You’re mildly retarded, aren’t you? You can read, but your short-term memory and cognitive abilities aren’t exactly packing a full deck (nor are your discussion skills, but now I’m just kicking a man that’s already down).
Let me spell it out for you in no uncertain terms: BAD FILMS ARE BAD! GOOD FILMS ARE GOOD! MEDIOCRE FILMS ARE MEDIOCRE.
I didn’t tell people not to go see Die Hard 4.0, in fact, I said this:
Is it a sequel to Die Hard? The jury is still out on that one.
Can you go to the cinema and enjoy this? Yes. There is large explosions, outrageous action, oneliners and the handsome mug of Bruce Willis.
So not only did I not tell anyone who might care not go see Die Hard; I actually told them that they could go, and enjoy it…
Now you wouldn’t know this, because you haven’t bothered reading beyond this entry (let alone the comments to which you reply, which is why I once again need to bring this down to a level where you can keep up), but I’m all for big blockbusters. My DVD shelves are packed with them in fact.
But there is a hell of a difference between Batman (Burton’s mind you), Terminator, Indiana Jones, Transformers, James Bond (not the Brosnan ones) and Die Hard 4.0. Those are good movies (with the occational blemishes, but that is to be expected; Michael Bay, I’m looking at you and your hard-on for the military and slutty bimbo’s), written, shot and directed with finesse, love and a childlike glee.
Die Hard 4.0 is not.
It was directed Len Wiseman; who directed (and co-‘wrote’)
The Matrix vs. Vampire the Masquerade vs. Werewolf the ApocalypseUnderworld, which not only manages to pace like a Lupo on the Autobahn, but also actually has a story which out-stupid-ifies Die Hard 4.0. It is a movie with no passion, no soul and no spark.Is it possible, that the following sequence of events might’ve led to Die Hard 4.0?: Fox wants to pick up one more of their old franchise from the vaults, to drive people into the cinemas against such sure-fire-hits as Transformers. So they dust off Die Hard, find a pseudo-hack screenwriter who can 1) be cajoled and 2) has some experience with ‘them modern technomologies’. Enter David Marconi (who has only done Enemy of the State (which I have a soft spot for) since he last wrote something, in 1986; namely a single episode of G.I. Joe, the animated series — aaaathank you IMDB), and Mark Bomback, who also has no real weight to shove around.
So now they’ve got a screenplay of sorts, based on an old Wired article, and they show it to Bruce, and they go “Bruce, ol’ buddy; my main man! It’s been a while since you had a hit Bruce… Don’t you feel like stretching those old legs before it’s too lave? What do you say we throw a gazillion dollars into this sequel and you’ll have enough money to buy a new summerhouse with a pool, filled right to the very top with green”.
So Bruce, who’s a nice guy, don’t get me wrong, sees an opportunity here. First of all he gets to have some fun doing an action film, and secondly more green ain’t never hurt nobody.
But on one condition. “Get me someone I can cajole” – “Done deal Bruce”.
Enter Len Wiseman.
One boring derivative script, written by people who have hardly ever proven their worth otherwise, one director who made his fame off of the shiny, fantabulously looking, leather-clad ass of Kate Beckinsale and one Bruce Willis who is now ready to push other people around, rather than the other way around.
And. You. Have. Die Hard 4.0.
But I would’t know anything about how these things work, because, as you say:
I don’t know Alfred, you drive a hard bargain, with thought-provoking arguments and in depth knowledge of not only the film industry at large, but the individual components of the film making craft.
I guess you have me at your mercy, disarmed and on my knees. I who belongs to the ‘insignificant minority’ of people who are unfortunate enough to have standards that go beyond “if it’s shiny and noisy, it must be ‘entertainment, now shove it right up there!’”.
But that’s alright, because better here on my knees with my standards intact, than on my feet, bent over a table with your ’99%’ of Hollywood in a line behind me, like you.
I’m keeping my word. I’ll let you have the last say on the subject of mediocre films.
However, please allow me to give an unsolicited advice, if I may.
You are a writer of movie critiques and a good one at that. You have humor, wit, and a very good insight of the goings-on in the industry. It’s perfectly OK if you batter these mediocre movies with a sledge hammer. It’s your job. Attack those profit oriented producers, incompetent actors, inept directors, ridiculously unimaginative script writers, etc. Call them STUPID if you will. Go after these fuckers with all guns blazing. Action packed and full of fireworks! Like in the movies, we enjoy stuffs like that whether or not we actually agree with you.
But please never train your guns on your readers. They are your clients! When you reacted to Pete by saying “.. YOU are officially the reason the shelves at our collective local video stores are filled to the brim with stupidityâ€, it was a direct assault on the person of the poor guy who was patronizing you and just wanted to share his thoughts with you.
This may just have been a teasing remark and I did not want to make a redwood out of a bonsai, but I have to admit that it pissed me off and I felt that I have to put in a few words for him. If I used some harsh words in the heat of the discussion, I apologize.
More power!
(also posted here)
You see, there are two kinds films. Films designed to make money, and films designed to be good. It is relatively easy to tell the difference. Van Wilder 2, Date Movie, Evan Almighty, and Transformers, are all movies designed to make money. Boys Don’t Cry, Monster, The Fountain, 2001, Brokeback Mountain, are all movies designed to be good films. Ideally, your “good” film will also make money, and your “profitable” film will also be good, but because the intent is different you might not get all the way. In other words, if you cast Lindsey Lohan as your lead it should be clear where your priorities are, just as clear as when you are ending your film with an abstract psychedelic meditation on the fate of mankind. So let’s not make any mistake here, Die Hard 4 (and all its predecessors) were designed to make money.
What makes the first Dire Hard so unique is that thru the careful application of tact, restraint, and innovation the film managed to be so good it set the standard for most of the action films that followed. And because those films were following a worthy example, the overall quality of Hollywood action films was improved. Thus, a film designed purely for profit transcended its purpose and became more.
This is why the quality of films solely designed to be entertainment matters. Because without those films the quality of films made solely for entertainment would never improve, and as a result we as an audience would stop being entertained. But we must always remember that this phenomenon is rare, as such we must be careful when calling a entertainment film a good one. Just as it is in no one’s interest to print too much money and drive the value of our cash downward, it is in no one’s interest to confuse “entertainment films” that Serve Their Purpose with “entertainment films” that Improve the Genre. For my money, the latter are “Good” films.
So, is Die Hard 4 in the same league as the first film? No. Should we condemn it for this reason? No.
We should condemn it because while films like Die Hard 4 serve their purpose and entertain well enough, it is the duty of people who have a vested interest in the quality of mass-entertainment to demand more. And we must recognize this demand for what it is: it is not the wholesale condemnation of any film that is less than transcendent, but a slow and relentless demand that quality should improve.
This means that any film, no matter how bad, that attempts to improve the genre it exits in is a Good film, and conversely, any film that does not make any attempt to expand beyond its genesis is Not Good Enough.
I concur!
I found this page by searching for “die hard 4.0 stupid” because I felt certain there were people who agreed with me that this movie was rubbish. Now I don’t mean to say that I didn’t enjoy it, but having watched Die Hard 1 on DvD just a week ago, the two movies don’t seem to belong in the same franchise. It’s like going to Pizza Hut and being offered a Big Mac. None of it’s high art, but you still go into the contract with some expectations.
Die Hard, the first movie, had a very realistic John McClane in a very realistic building full of very realistic people, suddenly interrupted by some larger-than-life bad guys. The whole thing had an integrity – when he ran across glass he did it knowing that it would hurt, and it did. When he threw a body out of the window, it was you, the watcher, throwing the body out of the window. It was you, the watcher, in the squad car as the body hit the windshield. In 4.0 it was so far removed from reality that I was waiting for Wile E. Coyote to show up with an anvil or a boulder. The experience was all about the light and sound show of the special effects. I have some die hard 5 ideas.
reading micheal and alfred’s discussion on this film has been hugely entertaining in itself!!
Alfred you are clearly not stupid or “mildly retarded” (though i dont think lines were crossed in the forum of heated debate) but micheal is definitely an intelectual heavyweight in this area and you certainly held your own. (the big mac metaphor was brilliant, though i wonder was it a off the cuff musing, or well practiced??)
and to think a die hard film would provoke such inteligent debate!
I felt like burgers that day :)
And yeah, who would’ve thought :D
It’s been fun reading this :)
:::Slight spoiler warning for anyone who hasn’t seen the film:::
I saw this a couple of days ago and actually quite enjoyed it despite the obvious problems with it. The things that most annoy me with films like this these days are indestructable people (the part where McClane runs over Mai at what must be 70mph, then we cut to a shot of her clinging onto the bonnet perfectly fine. Followed by crushing her between a wall and the car where in reality she would be flat as a pancake, yet she still fights back!) and a total disregard for physics (flying car in the tunnel anyone?!).
Overall it wasn’t THAT bad, but if you can switch your brain off and be happy with explosions you’ll like it :)
Michael,
I absolutely understand what you’re getting at. The problem is some people don’t hold certain movies to their heart as dearly as some of us may. As soon as I heard about a PG-13 Die Hard 4 my jaw dropped and I thought to myself “those money grubbing mutha fuckas”. It’s as bad as Grindhouse becoming two movies, etc. God forbid a movie have tradition or heart in place of money making plastic bullshit. Nope… we’re gonna have to moosh up this “complex” script and this “challenging” story so we can spoon fed all the weak minded zombies who are ready to sit down and watch this shit just because the CGI composed explosions give them another 5 minutes not to think about where the fuck there life went.
I can’t believe the backlash in this forum to your review of Die Hard 4, you’re one hundred percent on the money. Then again it’s not like you care what any of the disagreeing individuals think – because they’re quite clearly morons who don’t even realise how excellently classic you’re references to Uwe Boll and Paul Anderson were haha.
Some say ignorance is bliss – I say fuck that. I refuse to pay for shit cinema.
binarybonsai.com – the Best site
Good day
I like your site – binarybonsai.com .
Thank for your help for us!
I think it wasnt easy to post here so much information.
Best Regards
Ismail