› ›

Die Hard (1988 - present)

1…1112141617…21

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I'd hate to see this go off the rails to the degree Indy did.

    I liked Crystal Skull, thank you very much. More than Craig's Bonds, in point of fact.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    chrisisall wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I'd hate to see this go off the rails to the degree Indy did.

    I liked Crystal Skull, thank you very much. More than Craig's Bonds, in point of fact.

    What is 'Crystal Skull'? I know of no such film. There are only three Indy films, correct? That's what I've been led to believe.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I'd hate to see this go off the rails to the degree Indy did.

    I liked Crystal Skull, thank you very much. More than Craig's Bonds, in point of fact.

    What is 'Crystal Skull'? I know of no such film. There are only three Indy films, correct? That's what I've been led to believe.

    Yes, I am heavily confused myself. Indy ends with Last Crusade, where our fantastic hero symolically rides off into the sunset, where it is clear that his onscreen adventures are finalized. Any future attempts afterwards to continue the series isn't likely, and would probably only be done to beat a dead horse and make more money. I for one am glad we never got Indy 4, a sigh of relief and bullet dodged there.

    @Creasy47, this @chrisisall bloke is clearly off his rocker.
  • FromCanadaWithLoveFromCanadaWithLove Canada
    Posts: 612
    I just got back from Die Hard 5. It's just an R-rated sequel to Die Hard 4. Wasn't nuts about it. 6/10

    Yippee Kay Yay Mercedes-Benz
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2013 Posts: 4,043
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I'd hate to see this go off the rails to the degree Indy did.

    I liked Crystal Skull, thank you very much. More than Craig's Bonds, in point of fact.

    What is 'Crystal Skull'? I know of no such film. There are only three Indy films, correct? That's what I've been led to believe.

    Yes, I am heavily confused myself. Indy ends with Last Crusade, where our fantastic hero symolically rides off into the sunset, where it is clear that his onscreen adventures are finalized. Any future attempts afterwards to continue the series isn't likely, and would probably only be done to beat a dead horse and make more money. I for one am glad we never got Indy 4, a sigh of relief and bullet dodged there.

    @Creasy47, this @chrisisall bloke is clearly off his rocker.

    After all his ranting about SF being terrible and he says he prefers KOTCS to it and he wants ancient relic John Glen back in the directors chair, I'm just glad people on this forum have no influence on EON.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Shardlake wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I'd hate to see this go off the rails to the degree Indy did.

    I liked Crystal Skull, thank you very much. More than Craig's Bonds, in point of fact.

    What is 'Crystal Skull'? I know of no such film. There are only three Indy films, correct? That's what I've been led to believe.

    Yes, I am heavily confused myself. Indy ends with Last Crusade, where our fantastic hero symolically rides off into the sunset, where it is clear that his onscreen adventures are finalized. Any future attempts afterwards to continue the series isn't likely, and would probably only be done to beat a dead horse and make more money. I for one am glad we never got Indy 4, a sigh of relief and bullet dodged there.

    @Creasy47, this @chrisisall bloke is clearly off his rocker.

    After all his ranting about SF being terrible and he says he prefers KOTCS to it and he wants acient relic John Glen back in the directors chair, I'm just glad people on this forum have no influence on EON.

    Haha, I concur! =))
  • NapoleonPluralNapoleonPlural
    edited February 2013 Posts: 512
    It might have been interesting to set Die Hard on that Mali gas field that got taken over by radical Islam terrorists a couple of months back. But that would be very back to basics, that's the prob with Die Hard unlike Bond it's hard to expand it without losing track of what made it different in the first place.
  • caiocaio
    Posts: 1
    Hello.

    I'm from Brazil and I am running for a contest to win some goodies from the movie Die Hard 5 ... but unfortunately I haven't seen the film yet, and to compete I need to know the answers to the following questions:

    Where does the last scenes of the movie take place?

    At the beginning of the movie, John McClane is doing target practice ... which U.S. president is in the background image is in this scene?

    Which singer is the Russian cabbie trying to interpret in the taxi?

    Which actress plays John McClane's wife in Die Hard 5 ?

    For whom is Jack McClane working ?

    Finally, can someone who has seen the film, suggest a good slogan for it (in the style of the existing ones: Ypiee Ki-Yay Mother Russia and Like Father! Like Son! Like Hell!)

    Many thanks to whoever can help me! :)

    And please forgive my poor English.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I read an article that talks about what the first Die Hard almost was and the actors who turned down the role before Willis took it on.
    Here it is...
    http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/actors-turned-down-die-hard-003953140.html
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited February 2013 Posts: 4,520
    Soundtrack
    61n1TtIFx2L._SL500_.jpg
    QsAssistant wrote:
    I read an article that talks about what the first Die Hard almost was and the actors who turned down the role before Willis took it on.
    Here it is...
    http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/actors-turned-down-die-hard-003953140.html

    Richard Gere i can imagine as a kind of Dalton choose, but we know that go wrong in 1989. I only have seen Richard Gere in DAD type of movie as action hero and own movie with older Richard Gere as action hero.

    Burt Reynolds and Don Johnson left a tv series and Stallone to much known as Rocky or Rambo. And Frank Sinatra i see more as kind of Roger Moore, earlier version of George Clooney.

    Mabey Jean claude van damme, he is 5 years younger then Willis.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/die-hard/24472/a-good-day-to-die-hard-review
    Even if you remove Die Hard from your mind, the core problem remains that A Good Day To Die Hard is basically, on its own merits, a piss-poor, unexciting action movie. It’s the Quantum Of Solace of the Die Hard series (although Quantum is a better film). There’s clearly been some welcome effort put into physical action work, but there’s nothing convincing to glue together one noisy scene to the next, the antagonists will be forgotten by the time you get to the car park, and once the novelty of seeing John McClane at work again dissipates (surprisingly quickly), you sadly end up with a movie that never comes anywhere close to earning its place in the boxset.

    If Die Hard 6 does, as suggested, go ahead, then surely that’d be the time to make a concerted effort to recapture that aforementioned Die Hard DNA. You think Die Hard, you think of the many memorable supporting characters (Ellis, Thornburg, Al, Hans Gruber), the suspense, the well-staged set pieces and the relatable, contained, scenario and central character. The franchise needs some of those ingredients back, and urgently, because they’re pretty much conspicuous by their absence here, in a film that should be ashamed to wear the Die Hard name. And if all else fails? They should at least wait until McTiernan gets parole before going anywhere near the series again.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    They were asking for this as soon as Woods and Moore came onboard. All the sixth one needs to do is banish the memories of this awful film. End on a better note.

    I'll see it this weekend and rip it a new one.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    I saw it.

    Maybe seeing it on it's own instead of after the others would've made it better. An 18 rating would've probably made it a little bit better too.

    But as it stands despite one or two enjoyable moments it was a crap action flick that's definetly the worst in the series. I'm being kinder than most people will be because I really want to like this film, I love the series, but there's really not much to like.

    I'm glad I read some reviews before seeing it because it meant I wasn't all that disappointed, as my expectations had dropped anyway.

    The QOS of the Die Hard series is a fair assessment although QOS does have much more going for it. The DAD of the Die Hard series is more like it although I'd say even DAD was better than this.

    I don't think the Indy 4 comparisons are fair. That film didn't need to be made but it was fun and if you look at it objectively it's good. The score is good, the acting is good, Spielberg nails the 50s setting, there's some good action, etc.

    Indy 4 was a good put pointless film. This is just an awful film.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Is it worth doing another to wrap it up @thelivingroyale? Can they go one better?

    So many reviews seem to have given up, lost hope and want this to be it.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Is it worth doing another to wrap it up @thelivingroyale? Can they go one better?

    So many reviews seem to have given up, lost hope and want this to be it.

    I'm not sure. On one hand I would like the series to really go out on a high note.

    On the other hand Die Hard 4 didn't feel much like Die Hard and this was just crap, so maybe they just can't make a good Die Hard movie anymore and should leave the series alone.

    If they can actually get a good script, and maybe get Mctierman back, then go ahead and make a 6th one. But there hasn't been a really good Die Hard film since the 90s so maybe they should leave it alone.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Interesting, even those that were for it and kind on the fence now. I can understand why after A Good Day To Die Hard.

    I'd like to think they can right the ship. Rocky V anyone?

    It's a shame really, up to now the series was very good. Oh well, what can you do? :)

    The next film must be called Old Habits Die Hard.
  • FLeiterFLeiter
    Posts: 315
    Actually the initial story of Die Hard 4 was to be based on the novel-'Tears of the Sun'. Brucie would survive an airplane crash in the jungle and be pursued by the baddies. Can't remember why it didn't go forward but Brucie didn't feel it was a Die-Hard worthy piece and just the D-H concept was selved. But Bruce would make 'TOTS' as a U. S. Navy Seals rescue mission. Die-Hard 4 was weak and I fear having one's son in D-H 5 may doom it for me.

    The original D-H was really good and reminded me of a novel I read years ago from a little known author named J. C. Pollock about terrorist action in the World Trade Center in NYC. I distinctly recall having the hero manuever between one high rise building to another.

    At Harrison Ford's advanced age, no one will pay money to see a fossil looking for a relic.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getting John McTiernan back would be the icing on a somewhat flatten but still sweet cake, if they can actually get talented drama writers instead of action flick screenwriters. No wonder it was sub-par. With its great foot holding in film history and its massive fan-base Die Hard should be able to score the best of the best talent, especially with Bruce leading the cast.
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    Dissapointed to read today that the reaction to the new Die Hard movie has had mainly negative reviews. Tell me it isn't true?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Looks likely to be one of the most poorly reviewed films of the year, even Empire didn't give this 3 stars.

    http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=137873

    Hopefully learnt from the SW prequels and also the 4 star review for seen objectively or not Indy 4 which might be adequate for some but was one of the biggest load of rubbish I've seen on the big screen in the last 10 years.

    I know now to go ahead and buy the Blu ray boxset as it is and not wait for the one with the inclusion of this utter travesty.

    I know I haven't seen it and maybe you shouldn't let reviews inform your opinion but this is even getting mixed reactions this is getting out right panned. They should just leave it alone like Indy no a 6th film would not be a good idea.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Shame because Willis has been on a roll lately. Red was tons of fun (and the sequel looks good too), Expendables 2 was a nostalgic blast and Looper was a brilliant film all round. So it's a shame that this was crap, especially considering it's Die Hard.
    Shardlake wrote:
    I know I haven't seen it and maybe you shouldn't let reviews inform your opinion but this is even getting mixed reactions this is getting out right panned.

    I can personally vouch for the reviews. See it if you want but don't get your hopes up.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    they can actually get talented drama writers instead of action flick screenwriters.

    Die Hard is an action film though. If they do make a 6th movie I really wouldn't risk getting some drama writer doing his first action movie.

    They do need writers experienced with action films, they just need to make sure that the writers have written GOOD action films before. The hack who wrote the A Team reboot (which wasn't terrible but was far from brilliant) isn't good enough, frankly.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    John Moore is the best villain of the series.

    Why couldn't Noam Murro direct as was intended? Maybe he didn't like the script. Now he's go off to do 300: Rise Of An Empire instead, which comes out in August.

    X(

    But most of all:

    :((

    Did it have to come to this?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Shane Black, we need you to write a final Die Hard movie for us!
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    On RT, we've dropped from 82% for the last one, to 13% for this.

    Wow.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    chrisisall wrote:
    Shane Black, we need you to write a final Die Hard movie for us!

    Now THAT is a good idea. He's an action film writer but a very good one. Predator, Lethal Weapon, etc. Let him write a Die Hard movie.

    There are worse choices to direct too.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 13,355
    There should be a long list of people jumping at the chance to end the Die Hard series. No excuse for a repeat of this film.

    Shane Black is a good choice.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Shane Black is a good choice.
    Plus: he already wrote a Bruce Willis movie! Experience counts.
  • NapoleonPluralNapoleonPlural
    Posts: 512
    Thing is, the best Die Hards, 1 & 3, were about the banter between McClane and the supercilious Gruber brother. Without that, you just would not have such a good movie. But as contrived as it is to have the same sh*t happening to the same guy, it's also hard to contrive a reason for the hero to be talking to the villain over a walkie talkie.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    A decent villain would be a start. It doesn't help the other good ones happened to be Gruber's. I think it's the actors that made it work. A good actor and character should be all that is needed.
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    If this movie bombs as it appears to be by the reviews seen thus far then will we ever get to see another Die Hard movie? Will the powers that be take the risk on what could be a further flop? Personally I can't see anyone other than Willis in the role but maybe a remake of the original with a new lead could be its best hope of a decent future?
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,520
    After he fight against a brother of brother and again against a brother of a brother now John McClain fight against his own brother.

    Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis together in Die Hard 6.

    EdgeofDarkness.jpg

    Directed by

    146320-campbell_martin_comic-con_large.jpg


Sign In or Register to comment.