Die Hard 4 without feeling

Rating: 4/10 (24 August 2007)

The only actual scene reference i make to the movie is in the trailer.
Die Hard 4 lacks the original feel of the other 3 in the franchise. Bruce Willis played his cornerstone character perfectly, except the story and plot were terrible.
Typically, the Die Hard movies have centered around a basic motivation and threat. One easily digested by the audience.
In #4 we are continually bombarded with technical references - only some of which we are expected to grasp. In places, if seems more like a 'first'installment in a sequel series, with lines and scenes written to educate the audience quickly to keep us on track with the story.
Also, we are used to being privy to the story, and following McClane through the movie as he figures it out, with breath-taking action and plot devices to keep our interest. Obviousness, for Die Hard, is essential, as it's what the other 3 have been built on. Perhaps #3 in smaller pieces, but a larger digestible story was obvious anyway. Writers and directors have relied on other movie making elements to keep the movie interesting. #4 keeps the audience in the dark, and releases information in dribs and drabs, in a bid to maintain attention. This severely frustrated me. This is different from #3 as we could see the overall and simple plot combining with the smaller 'tasks' as the character Jeremy Iron's played comes to light. Die Hard = a no brainer kind of movie. I don't want to think when watching Die Hard... I want to grasp the basic concept and setting straight away, and follow McClane's journey of shooting and superb action for that last and immediate twist at the end.
Even though Willis played his character well, the overall perception of McLane was more of desperation then dedication. Previous Die Hard's, his perceived attitude was one of 'at any cost', which didn't come across accurately in #4.
With technology available that wasn't, even for #3, #4 is jam packed with effects. Almost all of them very very cool. But #4 had two flaws with these. First, the other movies justified the violence (in the context of the realm of Die Hard) very very well. Necessity was evident. And second, effects and stunts in the first three at least looked possible. Even if they were special effects, they looked like it was legitimately possible - there was no thought of "yeah, as if". Special effects in #4 looked put on for the sake of having them there - not to contribute as strongly (as the first three) to the story. Because of CGI etc anything is possible. But some realism - even just a hint of it - needs to exist. Such as crouching down and having 2 cars - either side of you - break the fall of another car coming at you from above.
In each movie John's 'side kick' has become more vital and visible to the overall story. #2 was more a convenience as this responsibility was spread over other characters. #3 was Zuess, but that combination was perfect. #4 we see the nerd stumble through the movie (the performance by the actor was excellent, the character was not written correctly). This character also seemed to exist as a contrast to John, to support the John McClane perception. Nothing but John should be doing that as strongly as this character has been. At least in #3 Zuess had his own personality, perspective and motivation. Also, it seemed the nerd was written in to appeal to younger audiences since Willis is now into his 50s. Who cares! Everyone knows the first Die Hard was filmed a long times ago.
All in all, the producers could have taken out the references to McClane, removed the title Die Hard, and no one would have guessed that it could have been a Die Hard Movie. Then the fans would have been happier as it wouldn't have to live up the responsibility of carry the Die Hard legacy the other three movies did so well.