› ›

Die Hard (1988 - present)

1…1314161819…21

Comments

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    @bondsum As you can tell from the picture and the trailer, she looks hot, but like most of the characters she's fairly forgettable character wise. Not really her fault though, it's the scripts.

    She could maybe be quite good if she was given a good film. Maybe another action franchise, who's latest film was really good and critically acclaimed (hint hint EON).
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Watched the original again last night on Blu Ray. Cracking stuff and never realised QUITE how great Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber was. In fact all the supporting characters (Holly, Argyle, Thornberg, Dwyne Robinson Al Powell, Sanchez Johnson #1 and Johnson #2, Ellis etc) are excellent. Part of me wonders whether they steal the show a bit from Bruce (then again you can't imagine Die Hard without him)

    I'm tempted to give this new one a miss and just stick with the first 4. I suspect its going to be average at best.

  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    @bondsum As you can tell from the picture and the trailer, she looks hot, but like most of the characters she's fairly forgettable character wise. Not really her fault though, it's the scripts.

    She could maybe be quite good if she was given a good film. Maybe another action franchise, who's latest film was really good and critically acclaimed (hint hint EON).
    She's certainly hot and I'd love to see more of her in a few Hollywood movies. Shame this Die Hard is a waste of everybody's talents. Good casting choice though.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2013 Posts: 4,043
    The interviews Bruce has been giving here in the UK have been quite bizarre, he seems completely disinterested, the sycophantic hosts like on The One Show are gushing over the film and telling him how good it is and he reacts like he's bewildered by the praise and he's completely aware it's a load old toss and can't believe the creepy interviewers are for real.

    God I hate the One Show it's pretty typical of what UK TV seems to be like these days, yes we still do make some quality programming but it seems few and far between these days.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Shardlake wrote:
    The interviews Bruce has been giving here in the UK have been quite bizarre, he seems completely disinterested, the sycophantic hosts like on The One Show are gushing over the film and telling him how good it is and he reacts like he's bewildered by the praise and he's completely aware it's a load old toss and can't believe the creepy interviewers are for real.

    God I hate the One Show it's pretty typical of what UK TV seems to be like these days, yes we still do make some quality programming but it seems few and far between these days.

    I agree! Not just a few, but EVERY video has him speaking in a less than enthusiastic tone, like his throat is racked with an illness of some kind.

    The One Show are supremely sycophantic, @Shardlake, the best way to ever describe the fools. I am sure the producers and crew had to help yank their lips off Bruce's arse so that he could leave the studio once the interview had concluded.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Apparently he was on Talk Sport too - for thirty seconds.

    I don't like The One Show either. When Rog is on it its a bit more bearable though ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Another brilliantly written review of this film:
    http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-02-13/film/A-Good-Day-to-Die-Hard/
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Another brilliantly written review of this film:
    http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-02-13/film/A-Good-Day-to-Die-Hard/

    Best Picture at the Oscars next year? I do think so!
  • TPM007TPM007
    edited February 2013 Posts: 183
    Very minor spoilers here, but now I've finally seen it, and although I knew the reviews for the film was bad, I still had hopes that it would be a decent action pic. But unfortunately, as a Die Hard fan, it was completely flat. Just shooting and explosions. The car chase was okay, but why did all the other action sequences (two!) take place in empty, deserted locations? A desserted building? Chernobyl? Did the makers know the film had a limited budget so just scripted it to abandoned locales? And as for McClane himself, he just wasn't the same! Willis just looked bored (and as the above review mentioned, the bit where he starts laughing is probably the most 'John McClane-y' we see him) and Jai Courtney really couldn't do anything with what was an awful script/story. Not his fault really - just the terrible script. The narrative was just not interesting at all, and I had no care about the how the film would end.

    But the thing that got me the most? There were 4 F bombs in the film. One of which was drowned out by a car engines roar. So why, oh why, was the one they drown out the one thats part of his catchphrase???

    4 out of 10
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Another brilliantly written review of this film:
    http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-02-13/film/A-Good-Day-to-Die-Hard/

    Best Picture at the Oscars next year? I do think so!

    Haha, I wonder how many Razzies it'll score?
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    edited February 2013 Posts: 7,653
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Haha, I wonder how many Razzies it'll score?

    None, because by that time there will be some "chickflic" they will want to insult because that seems fashionable to do.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Haha, I wonder how many Razzies it'll score?

    None, because by that time there will be some "chickflic" they will want to insult because that seems fashionable to do.

    I heard Movie 43 was abysmal. Like Mark Kermode, I want to know what the directors had on all those stars to get them to appear. I mean seriously, there is some great talent in there that really downgraded into what appears to be a vile and lack luster film.
  • rocketgun83rocketgun83
    Posts: 36
    Probably the worst sequel ever, if not worst "film" ever. I put film in quotations because I can't even qualify this thing as an actual movie. It's more a series of disconnected, incoherent images. I've already decided this movie does not exist. The Die Hard films ended with number four. This movie does not seem to have been created by human hands. If you had allowed fifteen zebras to create Die Hard 5 you would have come with a better a result. If you thought the last Indiana Jones was bad, wait til you see this trash. Acutually...don't see it at all. There is not a single person on this earth who will like this movie.
  • SJK91SJK91
    edited February 2013 Posts: 1,310
    Like everyone has been saying, this is nearly a complete embarrassment to the entire series - and that is coming from someone who owns and enjoys (to varying extents) all of the films.

    Firstly, the film is flat out terribly shot. I didn't realize Russia had so many earthquakes, geez. This sans-tripod garbage has to end. Not only was it used (and subsequently ruined) the action sequences, but nearly every dialogue scene shakes all over the place. EVEN THE FINAL SHOT OF THE FILM IS IN SHAKEY SLOW MOTION. God almighty.

    There was no clear villain, which was a big problem. Truth be told, the ONLY character in the film I was interested in was the carrot munching, dancer guy. Not sure what it was about him, but I was sure disappointed when he met his comeuppance so early on.

    The plot. Ha.

    I don't know what to say about Bruce Willis. The character of John McClane has been all but ruined with A Good Day to Die Hard. Can we even classify this as a Die Hard film? I don't think so, no. Maybe Pt. 6 will reveal this entry was a horrible radiation induced dream. That would be the only legitimate explanation for me.

    Shame on all involved for green-lighting this giant piece of junk. I guess I won't have a complete Die Hard collection after all.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2013 Posts: 11,189
    According to hardcore fans:

    Crystal Skull raped Indy
    Batman and Robin raped Batman
    Die Another Day raped Bond

    Does this film rape Die Hard?
  • StartStoppingStartStopping
    Posts: 140
    Yep. I'm sorry it really does.
    Right where the sun don't shine.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    The main reason to do number six - things can't get worse.
  • RossRoss
    Posts: 4
    I cannot even bring myself to watch it. After the last one I felt like I had sold my soul it was that bad. I even felt embarrassed coming out of the cinema after it.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2013 Posts: 11,189
    The last one I thought was ok. Not great but so-so (the steelbook "directors cut" is much better than the theatrical one).

    This is quite funny. When even the geeky fanboys don't like it there's a problem

  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Hmmmmm? Plan to go see it next week?!!!
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Just seen it. Terrible. Worse than the 4th one and that's saying something. It just doesn not feel like a proper Die Hard and the villains are very weak. Avoid.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    I think the film starts of good. We get some dodgy bits when we get to Russia, but it's still enjoyable. Then after the shootout at the safe house it really goes downhill, eventually ending in the CGI filled mess of a finale.
    TPM007 wrote:
    Willis just looked bored

    Nah can't agree here. One thing I did like about the film was that Willis was playing the Mcclane from the first 3 again instead of the more po faced hero from the 4th movie, and he seemed to be having fun.
  • CrzChris4CrzChris4
    Posts: 463
    Am I the only one who liked the way McClane was portrayed in Live Free or Die Hard? He had his moments where he harkened back to the McClane of old (complaining about getting involved while in the tunnel, laughing after destroying the helicopter with the car, triumphantly shouting at Maggie Q's death, etc.) but for someone who has went through so much, I like how he seemed cynical about his old acts.

    Personally, as much as I liked when they first announced this film, it really should've ended with the fourth. There was a spec script floating around for a Die Hard sequel which had him visiting Jack at the Nakatomi Corporation in Tokyo and that would have felt far more natural than his son working for the CIA.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    I still like the slogan Yippee kayee Mother....Russia. :D
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Ok this has been bugging me for a while.
    At Cherobnoyl, why didn't John and Jack need radiation suits if the baddies did? I know they sprayed something which bought down the radiation levels but I'm talking about before that. They were walking through the corridors in the suits if I remember right while John and Jack were wearing regular clothes when they went down the same route.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Americans are crazy!!!! :D
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Well I saw it this weekend and it really is that bad. The awful action scenes are in place and all too over the top but the story is missing! I think it needed to be a least two hours so as John Moore is working on a director's cut that may be better. Also why the use of slow motion a lot of the time? And no main villain, just a couple of twists so three people over the course of the film, we think are the main bad guy, or girl! Man, this film was bad. I'd love another, so to not even at the worst possible point. It's really is the Rocky V on the Die Hards.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,520
    Die Hard 5 at the Dutch Boxoffice:

    After 2 weeks Die Hard 5 delieverd $1,869,502. This comes more closer to the Boxoffice of Bourne Legacy. Die Hard 5 started with 100 screens in week 1 and keep those in Week 2, Bourne start with 97 and in the second week get a litle update to 98 screens. Die Hard 5 wins from Bourne at the moment, Bourne Legacy delieverd after 2 weeks $1,265,117 and $1,942,484 after 4.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Going to be watching this in about 30 mins! Will post my thoughts on it later?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Well I saw it this weekend and it really is that bad. The awful action scenes are in place and all too over the top but the story is missing! I think it needed to be a least two hours so as John Moore is working on a director's cut that may be better. Also why the use of slow motion a lot of the time? And no main villain, just a couple of twists so three people over the course of the film, we think are the main bad guy, or girl! Man, this film was bad. I'd love another, so to not even at the worst possible point. It's really is the Rocky V on the Die Hards.

    Amen to that. A Director's Cut? Really? O I understand now. He's simply going to slow down the action more to make it a two hour exercise in boredom and annoyance.

    As I wrote in the last movie you watched thread: generic film making this.
Sign In or Register to comment.