› ›

Die Hard (1988 - present)

1…1011131516…21

Comments

  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    Die Hard III was pretty good too, the "I hate N****rs" scene is hillarious.

    "Ive got a headache A VERY VERY BAD HEADACHE" *Smack*
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited February 2013 Posts: 4,520
    Imdb.com say the movie is 97 minutes. The offcial Dutch pathe cinema website confirm the movie going to be 96 minutes. The screentime of Taken 2 whas 93 minutes, the screentime of Skyfall whas 143 minutes and Bourne Legacy 135 minutes.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    I will still likely see it largely because come on it's freaking Die hard John Mclane blowing up hald of moscow What is not to love!

    It's a good popcorn flick unlike Michael Bay movies which are bad pop corn flicks lol
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Risico007 wrote:
    I will still likely see it largely because come on it's freaking Die hard John Mclane blowing up hald of moscow What is not to love!

    Because that's not Die Hard. That's what isn't to love.

    We are moving farther and farther away from what makes McClane great.

    It isn't about one location, it isn't about a man in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now it's gotten too big, too action focused and there isn't that special element present anymore that is such a part of Die Hard at its origin.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Some people seem like they'd only be happy if they did what DH 2 did and cloned the first one, except in a different setting.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    It isn't about one location

    It's not any bigger than DH3.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    it isn't about a man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Seems to me like it is.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I'd have been happy if they'd stopped at Die Hard 2 and gone no further, @thelivingroyale. The first one was good because it was based on an excellent pulpy novel by Roderick Thorp, originally intended as a follow-up film to The Detective starring Frank Sinatra. The second was enjoyable but based on someone else's novel called 58 Minutes with a totally different character. I suppose it was clever to combine the two together but it just felt it had lost its credibility. The rest were original screenplays which explains why they are far weaker as they're just going by the numbers action movies without a soul.

    For me, the Die Hard movies are akin to the Death Wish sequels - not a patch on the original one.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Some people seem like they'd only be happy if they did what DH 2 did and cloned the first one, except in a different setting.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    It isn't about one location

    It's not any bigger than DH3.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    it isn't about a man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Seems to me like it is.

    From what I have seen it appears John helps Jack on his own accordance, while in Die Hard he has to take action to survive. I don't know how best to explain it.
  • BondWillReturnBondWillReturn
    Posts: 816
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Some people seem like they'd only be happy if they did what DH 2 did and cloned the first one, except in a different setting.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    It isn't about one location

    It's not any bigger than DH3.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    it isn't about a man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Seems to me like it is.

    From what I have seen it appears John helps Jack on his own accordance, while in Die Hard he has to take action to survive. I don't know how best to explain it.

    I'm not going to judge this film until I've seen it, but you have a point there @0Brady, even Len Wiseman on the 4th was very much aware of this. In one of the featurettes he said 'There was originally a script where McClane volunteered to help, but that just isn't Die Hard. He has to get in the action unintentionally' or something like that. This is going to be the first Die Hard film not to do that.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Thinking about it, with John Moore directing, one of the worst reviewed action directors ever, what did we expect?

    Skip Woods writing doesn't help either. This is Die Hard! Is that all they could find?

    Next time, they need to up their game - a lot!

    I'm still looking forward to watching this film though, for some reason.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Thinking about it, with John Moore directing, one of the worst reviewed action directors ever, what did we expect?

    Skip Woods writing doesn't help either. This is Die Hard! Is that all they could find?

    Next time, they need to up their game - a lot!

    I'm still looking forward to watching this film though, for some reason.

    That's how I am - it's looking bad, and I probably shouldn't see it, but I will. I was excited for this movie before, so I'll see it and decide for myself. It's only a few bucks lost, if it is absolute trash.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Well while you lot across the pond get an R rated Die Hard movie we get a heavily cut version which is rated fucking 12A X(

    Die Hard 4.0 was a 15 and that was really toned down so how will this be? Not really looking forward to it much at all now to be honest.

    Taken 2 was a 12a and it wasn't terrible but this is Die Hard. The swearing and ultra violence is the best bit.

    I might just leave it and hope they release an uncut version on DVD.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @thelivingroyale, I don't blame you: the rating would really deter me from seeing it. The plot alone keeps me worried - I just want McClane stuck in a small setting, heavily outnumbered, in a situation he isn't expecting - with a big, fat R rating slapped on it.

    As for the uncut version, they should. They even finally got around to releasing the unrated version of 'Live Free or Die Hard' on blu-ray - I, of course, am still stuck with the PG-13 version - and it makes the film a little bit better.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited November 2013 Posts: 12,837
    This is the worst bit.

    "and a partial use of ‘motherf***er’, the end of which has been cut short so the implied strong language is not heard in full"

    They even ruined the catchphrase AGAIN. FFS.

    That's it, I'm telling my fiance when she gets in from work that we're moving to America. I don't care if they call football the wrong name over there anymore, it'll be worth it to get an R rated Die Hard film. You lot have mechanics and receptionists over there so we probably won't end up unemployed. We'll be fine.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    How come Fox wanted a 12A in the UK and not a 15? The last one was 15.

    What a joke, it's as if things just got worse.

    Now, I'm in even less of a rush to see it.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    This is turning into the Kingdom of The Crystal skull (no it's not OK its utter rubbish)
    of the Die Hard Franchise, by that I mean that you'll be wishing it ended at 3 or 4 at a push but this sounds like it's going to well and truly piss on the series legacy, well if you want to see this kind of junk be my guest but I've heard enough now to make sure I won't be shelling out for this.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Shardlake wrote:
    This is turning into the Kingdom of The Crystal skull (no it's not OK its utter rubbish)
    of the Die Hard Franchise, by that I mean that you'll be wishing it ended at 3 or 4 at a push but this sounds like it's going to well and truly piss on the series legacy, well if you want to see this kind of junk be my guest but I've heard enough now to make sure I won't be shelling out for this.

    I'll still see it. I was excited for it, and I don't want to let reviews get in the way of it. I'll judge it once I've seen it.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    It's such a shame to go from a solid entry to what could well be the worst yet.

    All bets are off for the last one, please go out on a higher note. Make it happen Willis. We need John McTiernan and someone who can actually write for a start.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I predict 2 star reviews across the board, I think it's best they just leave it alone the same way they should stay well away from another Indy film, Harrison Ford has done it and now it's Willis' turn to piss all over the franchises history, well done to both of them.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Here's another one for you: How the hell did it take six years to do another film? That's a long time.

    What a shambles. :(
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Well it turns out that my other half had gotten us tickets to see all the Die Hard films at BFI IMAX in London. Best valentines day present ever :D

    Looks like I'll be seeing this movie after all but even if it's crap at least I'll have enjoyed seeing the others before it.
    Samuel001 wrote:
    How the hell did it take six years to do another film? That's a long time.

    To be fair it's not as bad as the 12 year gap between Vengance and 4.0
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    But that was stalled due to 9/11, so it may have been about 8 years. Still a long time, mind. Does this mean it won't be until 2019 we get to see the final film? Willis would be pushing 60.

    Nice going @thelivingroyale. Hopefully it's the uncut versions of three and four.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Samuel001 wrote:
    But that was stalled due to 9/11

    Never knew that. Did they have to rewrite it because it involved middle eastern villians or something?

    I think the gap might be shorter if there is a 6th movie because Willis getting on a bit now.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    But that was stalled due to 9/11
    Never knew that. Did they have to rewrite it because it involved middle eastern villians or something?

    I think the gap might be shorter if there is a 6th movie because Willis getting on a bit now.

    The whole film was rethought in light of the attack but the hacker angle we got has similarities with the original script as do the villains. Of course it was based on an article, only the fifth film was written as a Die Hard film and it seems for the worst.

    Hopefully this one does well enough and the final one gets going within a couple of years. Holly better be back too, along with Lucy and Jack. "Out with a bang", needs to be the memo.

    I love this series, it needs to be remembered well.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Not sure I'd like Jack back again from the looks of this one. I don't like the idea of Mcclane junior running around trying to upstage his dad and although I can't fairly judge properly yet, Jack seems a bit of a bland and generic action hero type.

    I hope Mcclane is on his own for the 6th film.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    I can't see that happening. A younger figure needs to be there to carry the scenes the public think Willis can't. It's just like the problem with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

    From what I understand Jack mellows throughout the film. A nice set up for number six there.

    Keep the main four characters from the series, get them all back and call it a day, I'd hate to see this go off the rails to the degree Indy did.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    And we're off:

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_good_day_to_die_hard/

    Not the best start. 8/8 are not in the slighest complementary.
  • NapoleonPluralNapoleonPlural
    Posts: 512
    Yeah, I saw it was on at BFI Imax!

    Let me know if it has any nice shots of Moscow.
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    A lot of those reviews were also saying how they didn't like Live Free or Die Hard as well and I actually really enjoyed it so maybe there's some hope left
  • SJK91SJK91
    edited February 2013 Posts: 1,310
    LOL at the 8% on Rotten Tomatoes. (5:40 CST)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    SJK91 wrote:
    LOL at the 8% on Rotten Tomatoes. (5:40 CST)

    It stands at 7% now! Whew, who knew it was going to be this terrible, apparently?
Sign In or Register to comment.