flipcritic
07-13-2007, 12:20 AM
I admit that this will sound like an extended pan of TRANSFORMERS, but honestly, I couldn't think of any other way to assess DIE HARD 4.0 than through comparison (I promise that my HARRY POTTER review won't be so comparative :D).
http://www.flipcritic.net/archives/000172.html
Those close to me wonder how I can justify liking John McClane over Optimus Prime. Jean-Luc Godard once said that the best way to criticize a movie is to make another. And though LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is not a remake of TRANSFORMERS, it is the superior action film, and comparing both reveals one’s strengths and the other’s weaknesses. Yes, both movies involve spectacles of mayhem and destruction, and involve preposterous plots, but DIE HARD 4.0 is a fine example of how managing expectations and a coherent visual strategy can be crucial in gaining a rapt audience.
Take the first half of TRANSFORMERS, where Michael Bay does an excellent job of presenting decepticon danger. A base is dismantled, defense networks are corrupted, and malevolent machines hide in plain sight. Believable menace (based on the premise) is established. Then how does he reward his audience? He presents naive robots as being racially stereotyped (Jazz: “What’s crackin’ little bitches?”), anthropomorphic (Bumblebee urinating lube oil), and unreasonably stupid (hiding in a backyard). If a director wants us to take his movie seriously, he should heed his own advice, rather than have us believe the leader of an altruistic mecha race would use eBay to locate an artifact which gives life to his brethren.
On the other hand, DIE HARD 4.0’s Len Wiseman does his surname proud, by not pretending that his plot should be taken all too seriously. We see early on a group of uber-computer hackers, led by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), executing an uber-cyberattack called a “fire sale”, taking over critical government, infrastructure, and financial computer systems, both online and off. Though this threat is not as unlikely as it sounds (see the Estonian cyberattacks earlier this year), the way the film gives it the full Hollywood treatment, one might think SkyNet wandered in from TERMINATOR 3. But make no mistake; Wiseman knows how to maintain the appropriate mix of suspense and silliness, whereas Bay sets us up for a treat only to lay an egg.
When it comes to filmmaking techniques, TRANSFORMERS also reveals Bay to be a one-trick pony. His trademark frenzied shaking points-of-view are so disorienting that they would make bobble-head dolls dizzy. He loves the use of CGI and finds some creative imagery now and then, but when it comes how his scenes play beside each other, he becomes aimless, causing the viewer to lose focus on character juxtaposition (Which transformer got killed? Who fired what? Who did what?). And not least of all, Bay has become one of the worst offenders of slow-mo overload, which causes some beautiful sequences to draw too much attention to themselves.
The great John Frankenheimer didn’t believe in using slow-mo sequences in his action movies, because where’s the “action” in slow motion? Wiseman knows this, letting the action speak for itself. His methods provide clarity to what happens, whom it happens to, and where it happens. His sequences are quick but easy to follow. No cameras are shaken because there is no need to. And numerous chase scenes are given a sense of placing that makes them easy to understand how they unfold.
It even feels refreshing to see that most of the action that occurs in DIE HARD 4.0 has been more or less physically staged. Bruce Willis’s character has to evade Parkour-practicing Frenchmen along with an Asian femme fatale (Maggie Q) who gets to kick him off a building. And where would you get to see a police car ramping into a helicopter, an SUV in an elevator shaft scene that would make Spielberg smile (see THE LOST WORLD), or an F-35 giving chase to a 16-wheeler? In an age where CGI dominates every blockbuster, it’s satisfying to know that there are still risks being taken to have us entertained. Sure it’s more dangerous, but would you rather see Jackie Chan with or without wires?
And then there’s John McClane, who’s like a boorish old pal you’re glad to see again. He’s still foul-mouthed, demanding, ill-tempered, and foolish. But he’s dependable, selfless, and decisive; traits most audiences will love, particularly if you’re American and tired of government ineptitude (as the movie points out with its FEMA references and bungling agencies). Despite bleeding a lot more than most victims, he’s still the stubborn force. Like that turd that just won’t get flushed down the toilet, he just keeps on coming back.
I apologize if this review has sounded like an extended pan of Bay’s latest work, but I only do so to highlight what action film is truly worth seeing. TRANSFORMERS is not a bad film, but it is powered solely by nostalgia, and as an action film, it’s wanting. LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD knows what it is and does its job with competence and gusto. It even respects your intelligence, something that Michael Bay rarely does.
http://www.flipcritic.net/archives/000172.html
Those close to me wonder how I can justify liking John McClane over Optimus Prime. Jean-Luc Godard once said that the best way to criticize a movie is to make another. And though LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is not a remake of TRANSFORMERS, it is the superior action film, and comparing both reveals one’s strengths and the other’s weaknesses. Yes, both movies involve spectacles of mayhem and destruction, and involve preposterous plots, but DIE HARD 4.0 is a fine example of how managing expectations and a coherent visual strategy can be crucial in gaining a rapt audience.
Take the first half of TRANSFORMERS, where Michael Bay does an excellent job of presenting decepticon danger. A base is dismantled, defense networks are corrupted, and malevolent machines hide in plain sight. Believable menace (based on the premise) is established. Then how does he reward his audience? He presents naive robots as being racially stereotyped (Jazz: “What’s crackin’ little bitches?”), anthropomorphic (Bumblebee urinating lube oil), and unreasonably stupid (hiding in a backyard). If a director wants us to take his movie seriously, he should heed his own advice, rather than have us believe the leader of an altruistic mecha race would use eBay to locate an artifact which gives life to his brethren.
On the other hand, DIE HARD 4.0’s Len Wiseman does his surname proud, by not pretending that his plot should be taken all too seriously. We see early on a group of uber-computer hackers, led by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), executing an uber-cyberattack called a “fire sale”, taking over critical government, infrastructure, and financial computer systems, both online and off. Though this threat is not as unlikely as it sounds (see the Estonian cyberattacks earlier this year), the way the film gives it the full Hollywood treatment, one might think SkyNet wandered in from TERMINATOR 3. But make no mistake; Wiseman knows how to maintain the appropriate mix of suspense and silliness, whereas Bay sets us up for a treat only to lay an egg.
When it comes to filmmaking techniques, TRANSFORMERS also reveals Bay to be a one-trick pony. His trademark frenzied shaking points-of-view are so disorienting that they would make bobble-head dolls dizzy. He loves the use of CGI and finds some creative imagery now and then, but when it comes how his scenes play beside each other, he becomes aimless, causing the viewer to lose focus on character juxtaposition (Which transformer got killed? Who fired what? Who did what?). And not least of all, Bay has become one of the worst offenders of slow-mo overload, which causes some beautiful sequences to draw too much attention to themselves.
The great John Frankenheimer didn’t believe in using slow-mo sequences in his action movies, because where’s the “action” in slow motion? Wiseman knows this, letting the action speak for itself. His methods provide clarity to what happens, whom it happens to, and where it happens. His sequences are quick but easy to follow. No cameras are shaken because there is no need to. And numerous chase scenes are given a sense of placing that makes them easy to understand how they unfold.
It even feels refreshing to see that most of the action that occurs in DIE HARD 4.0 has been more or less physically staged. Bruce Willis’s character has to evade Parkour-practicing Frenchmen along with an Asian femme fatale (Maggie Q) who gets to kick him off a building. And where would you get to see a police car ramping into a helicopter, an SUV in an elevator shaft scene that would make Spielberg smile (see THE LOST WORLD), or an F-35 giving chase to a 16-wheeler? In an age where CGI dominates every blockbuster, it’s satisfying to know that there are still risks being taken to have us entertained. Sure it’s more dangerous, but would you rather see Jackie Chan with or without wires?
And then there’s John McClane, who’s like a boorish old pal you’re glad to see again. He’s still foul-mouthed, demanding, ill-tempered, and foolish. But he’s dependable, selfless, and decisive; traits most audiences will love, particularly if you’re American and tired of government ineptitude (as the movie points out with its FEMA references and bungling agencies). Despite bleeding a lot more than most victims, he’s still the stubborn force. Like that turd that just won’t get flushed down the toilet, he just keeps on coming back.
I apologize if this review has sounded like an extended pan of Bay’s latest work, but I only do so to highlight what action film is truly worth seeing. TRANSFORMERS is not a bad film, but it is powered solely by nostalgia, and as an action film, it’s wanting. LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD knows what it is and does its job with competence and gusto. It even respects your intelligence, something that Michael Bay rarely does.