7.5 or something on here.Im really not seeing it

Rating: 5/10 (27 January 2013)

Why didn't i like this film. I think its an accumulation of factors. To start with the plot just didn't seem very 'Die Hard'. Secondly the story of John McClane in my eyes had run its course and to bring him back again to me was just farcical. I think the original appeal with the character was that while Stallone and Arnie were constantly producing action films with surreal characters that were so hyper masculine it seemed cheesy and well...just not believable, Die hard offered something different. The character of McClane is the everyday cop who happens to have just been caught up in the middle of a mess and feels obliged as a policeman to sort it out. McClane appeals because he's realistic.
Granted with two more instalments it seemed unlikely of wrong place at wrong time would strike again which it did in Die Hard 2 (kind of why die hard 2 isn't really great either in my book), but with Die hard with a vengeance being about revenge i also accepted this. To become embroiled again just isn't believable.
Moving back to my point of Die Hard being realistic in comparison to Rambo, whose destruction of a hundred soldiers with a machine gun single handedly is farcical, Die Hard 4.0 (why not just 4...why the point O at the end. 4.0 is 4...lord knows. This annoys me) demonstrates McClane taking out a helicopter with a car (at will mind...he could do this a hundred times and in his sleep) and muttering "i was out of bullets" as though its no big deal. I've seen this film once and as i sit here writing this review i think it was around 2 years ago, maybe longer, but from what i can remember; Die Hard 4.0 (remember when they release die hard 5 now, they have to put the point 0 at the end so that it makes sense and is avant garde)...Not for me thanks.