Why 'Die Hard 4' sucks.
The best way to understand how poor a film DHINO is, is to compare it to Die Hard and see where it falls short, which you'll notice it does on every level.
The film reeks of the committee meetings that led to its inception, where QUALITY was sacrificed at every stage for MONEY. The studio had a meeting about how to maximise profits and decided that the film needs to remove all foul language to ensure a PG-13 rating, including masking the hero's iconic catchphrase with the sound of a gunshot. It needs a succession of 'cool' action scenes, each one louder and more extravagant than the last that will resemble a video game - popular with teens. It needs to pair McClane up with a young computer-wizz that the new computer-savvy teen audience can relate to. It needs a sexy young girl, again for the teenage boys. It needs a hip, young villain, preferably a familiar face from youth-oriented cinema - Timothy Olyphant for the girls. Let's crowbar Kevin Smith in because he's a popular voice amongst the youth market (no swearing though!) We need a young eager-to-advance-his-career music video director who is big on style and won't bog things down with SUBSTANCE, we'll go with Len Wiseman. We need a separate title for American audiences that will get the young and stupid mindlessly cheering 'freedom!' (the film is called Die Hard 4.0 outside America). A marketing deal with Pizza Hut and Arby's will bring McClane to the budget family market - a huge dollar.
The shrieking stupidity of the film makes it unsuitable for the Die Hard series - moments such as when Gabriel blacks out a tunnel, only for the cars to accelerate into the darkness like lunatics instead of, erm, braking and, erm, turning their lights on. Or when McClane taunts and provokes the villain who is threatening to shoot his daughter in the head - the studio hope that youngsters in the audience will cheer on McClane for his irreverence, the rest of us can't believe how fücking stupid this patronising garbage is. The terrible edu-tainment moments of McClane teaching Matt Farrell, and vicariously all the kiddies in the audience, how to be THAT GUY are unforgivably corny and trite. The wafer thin characterisations, amateur directing, overblown to the point of absurdity action scenes, utterly ineffectual villain - all conspire to make this some third rate, bland, tedious action pop for teens. NONE of the qualities that made the trilogy distinct and special are present in this cynical marketing cash-grab posing as 'a Die Hard film'.
The problems begin at the script stage, and again one can compare the scripts for the first film, which is used as an example of excellent screenplay writing, and DHINO's script, which represents the lowest swill of Hollywood output.
Structurally, Die Hard is as elegant a screenplay as they come. It sets up a situation, fully explores its possibilities, and ends satisfyingly, leaving no stone unturned. It models itself on the traditional Western - a genre often featuring a stranger entering a foreign environment who gets caught up in the problems of the 'town' and ends up eliminating the villain and thereby restoring peace before leaving. The script frequently alludes to this debt with 'yipee-kay-yay', 'cowboy' and 'Roy (Rodgers)'. Already the screenplay is anchored to a proven template, even as it applies a modern twist on that formula.
The circularity of plot is furthered with the use of recurring motifs. Things are set up at the beginning - the slamming face-down of the McClane family photo, the limo ride, the Rolex - which all return with a satisfying pay-off towards the end. This creating and closing of the circle makes for very satisfying viewing by creating a solid internal universe for the story, it's based on Chekov's gun ("If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there.") Back To The Future, another endlessly re-watchable modern classic, also adheres heavily to this principle. It bring shape and definition to a story.
DHINO, by contrast, is a sprawling mess which aims to make the adventure country-wide. The other Die Hards had a strong sense of location - skyscraper, airport, New York, with each location having a strong personality in itself, but DHINO overreaches in it's attempt to be 'bigger and better' and loses all sense of shape, and has to resort to compromising the McClane character by having him fly helicopters (it being a recurring motif in the trilogy that McClane hates flying). The playing field is so big there IS no playing field, and McClane's involvement in the scenario is not properly justified. When his daughter enters the mix there IS a reason for his involvement, but the film botches this by having McClane goad the villain to murder her, and by having her unresponsive when Gabriel orders the military to kill her dad, completely betraying her characterisation.
Die Hard's script honours logic. The novel on which the film is based was notable for transposing armed combat to the 'urban jungle' of a modern high-rise, and the script maintains this logic of combat. The villains behave logically to achieve their goals, and McClane behaves logically in his responses - this allows for audience engagement because we can put ourselves in McClane's shoes. When he learns of the situation his first reaction is to contact the police, when this fails he activates the fire alarm etc. He does what we would do. In DHINO, McClane provokes and taunts a villain holding a gun to his daughters head - as mentioned, the filmmakers believe this will raise cheers from the kids in the audience, for the rest of us the result is complete dramatic disengagement.
The supporting characters are fully developed in Die Hard's script, with each one being fleshed out with idiosyncrasies. Staurt and de Souza understand that DETAIL is the key to credibility and the characters each express themselves in ways that define them. Argyle 'if your friend's hot to trot, there's a few momma-bears I can hook him up with', Ellis 'Hans, booby, I'm you're white night', Holly 'I know EXACTLY what your idea of our marriage should be', Al 'why don't you wake up and smell what you shovellin'!', Harvey 'as in Helsinki, Sweden', Johnson and Johnson 'no the other one', Karl 'no one kills him but me', Takagi 'Pearl Harbour didn't work out so we got you with tape decks' ALL register as real and are memorable because they are fully defined both in the screenplay and the way McTiernan coaxes nuanced performances from his actors. None of the characters in DHINO, with the possible exception of 'Matt Farrell' is memorable nor properly defined, they are generic cyphers which are quickly forgotten, there is no detail nor definition to their characterisation. This is lazy, unconsidered writing for throwaway entertainment, it's not worthy of the Die Hard series.
McClane himself is VASTLY different in both films. In Die Hard he is fully rounded and, unprecedented in action thrillers, cries as he delivers a message for Al to give to his wife when he expects to die. In DHINO he marches ahead, invulnerable, killing with ease, tactlessly spouting abuse at his enemies while they hold his daughter at gun-point, delivering life-lessons about being a hero. In Die Hard he curses like street-wise cop that he is, in DHINO he can't because of the kids in the audience. Compromises are made at every turn to water and dumb down the material for youngsters. Adding to this insult, Fox have perverted the character into some poster child for the American right - having him awkwardly emote 'it's not a SYSTEM, it's a COUNTRY!' and having him suspiciously chide his teenaged sidekick for questioning the integrity of the media - how convenient, Fox.
The villains. Hans is one of the most idiosyncratic and memorable villains in the history of cinema, virtually every line of his is quotable and relevant to who he is, we love watching him as much as we despise him for murdering the honourable and gentle Mr Takagi. Gabriel is an utterly wet, generic, forgettable, impotent brat who can only watch, angry and frightened, as Robo-McClane marches unstoppably to execute him. Hans is impressively sophisticated, his eloquent jab at corporate greed 'and when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer' is the kind of wonderful writing that would have been instantly nixed by the makers of DHINO for not being dumb enough, if they even understood it themselves, which I sincerely doubt.
This is scratching the surface but should make the point that screenwriting is a craft, that Die Hard is written by masters of that craft who were encouraged to make a 'good' script, and that DHINO was written by someone largely incompetent at that craft who was encouraged to water and dumb down the material by a now-rancid studio that panders to the young and stupid, and is consequently a 'poor' script.
People will be watching Die Hard for years to come, and learning from it's excellent screenplay. The same cannot be said for the godawful, cynical and utterly forgettable DHINO.