Home > Entertainment > Movies > Movie Reviews
Created on: October 28, 2009
It's a sad reflection of our times that the most eagerly anticipated movies are often sequels in a franchise which started in the 1980s. Terminator, Die Hard, and Lethal weapon all crashed onto the scene with memorable characters, iconic scenes and classic lines. So why is it that we have never been able to match them with new ideas, relying on our old favourites? It may have something to do with the fact that the leading men have lost their way. Those of us who like our films vintage and our men to be gentleman may bemoan the loss of Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart, but in fairness the 80s yielded quite a crop of macho action heroes. Bruce, Arnie, Sly, Mel, (Jean Claude, if we're counting him... I don't). They all had laconic wit (well, Arnie just said things in an Austrian accent, maybe that's what made them funny), bulging biceps and a crazy fearlessness which saw them shimmying up lift shafts, throwing themselves out of planes, and wrestling tigers (probably... I haven't seen EVERY film, so I'm going to hazard a guess.)
What do we have now? Weedy vampires and computer nerds. Even the action heroes seem to lack a certain something - Ben Affleck may look like a GI Joe, but he also has roughly the same amount of charisma. We want REAL men, not these adolescent bum fluff merchants. There is a reason why George Clooney regularly tops "Most sexy" lists, and it's not because he is twenty years old and prances about in a school prom. And seriously, can you imagine how poor 24 would be if Jack Bauer were played by a fresh faced pretty boy?
And so, here we are the 2000s, and rather than replacing our action boys, we are simply forcing them to carry on, despite their creaky knees and aching backs. We can't find modern substitutes, so they must battle on. The latest instalments in the updated franchises see our heroes accompanied by a young pretender to the crown - although Harrison Ford made it clear in Indiana Jones that he was not ready to throw in his hat just yet.
So this movie sees the young, smart aleck cop of yesteryear all grown up and grumpier than ever. He is now a grizzled old cop, weary of the trials and tribulations thrown at him by his work and home life. The first scene of the movie provides us with an update - John McCLane is divorced, somewhat estranged from his daughter, who insists on calling him "John" and feeling helpless in the face of a life that keeps going whether he is on board or not. Not that he'd ever admit to that, of course.
True
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
Movie reviews: Live Free or Die Hard (Die Hard 4)
What happened here? What happened to the simple, escapist revenge story? Or the avaricious, malicious greed story? A villainous
Die Hard first started in 1988 and then followed up with Die Hard 2 in 1990 and then Die Hard with a vengeance in 1995.
by GeniustoBurn
It's a sad reflection of our times that the most eagerly anticipated movies are often sequels in a franchise which started
I have loved the Die Hard movies for as long as I can remember, and when I heard that Bruce Willis was making a new Die
With the War on Terror coming to a screeching halt in America it's only erroneous arrests and propaganda keeping it going
View All Articles on: Movie reviews: Live Free or Die Hard (Die Hard 4)
Helium Debate
Cast your vote!
Who is better as Rachel Daws in the Batman movies: Maggie Gyllenhaal or Katie Holmes?
Click for your side.