https://craigzablo.proboards.com/post/865796/thread"how 'roughly' long was the film?" - Almost (2) hours
"same with the tone, comedy and dialogue" - Felt closest to Part 3, more R rated in terms of dialogue
"Is it explained why the new people are there like 50 cent and Fox, etc, and no Li, Crews or Snipes, etc?" - Not really
I want to add that my reviews/opinions are based off how consequential the tone/story/stakes are. I need some type of catalyst that will make me care. Think "Tears of the Sun"; that team was "expendable". If everything is safe and by the numbers, it's hard for me to resonate with any type of film and chances are I'm going to forget it after a good night's rest. EX1's tone was serious enough that I was able to forgive the lack of consequences (character sacrifice). EX2's star power was enough for me to forgive the tonal shift and lack of consequence. EX3 completely lost me and EX4 just sealed the deal. What this franchise needed was a director with "vision and experience", someone to capture the gold in these moments. EX2/3/4 all didn't know how to take advantage of what they had (JCVD, Gibson, Li, Snipes, etc.). Had these films had a competent director like McTiernan, well, you can imagine these guys would be placed in amazing circumstances/magic moments. If new vision was a necessity, then filmmakers like Stahelski (Wick), Hargrave (Extract), Evans (Raid), and Naishuller (Nobody) would have shot the action in competent and coherent fashion. In the end, most of the entries in this franchise just didn't know how to properly stage their sequences and get the most out of them.