A Good Day To Die Hard Page 6

  • Page

    of 10 First / Last

  • TarickStonefire 11 Feb 2013 16:28:25 3,240 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Aretak wrote:
    Then again, 2 and 3 were both shit too, so it's not like it's ruining a classic franchise or anything. Easy enough to pretend the first one has nothing to do with any of them.
    Wha-huh? Oh come on, 1 and 2 are both 'Die Hard' classics. I mean 1 has the obvious advantage of being so unexpectedly awesome, but 2 was also great fun and kept it all in one place (mostly) which I liked.

    3 just feels like any old action romp really, but it's still a fun enough film that just happens to have John McClane and a Brit in a dodgy accent in it.

    It's just 4 that phoned it in fun-wise, so far. Well, for me anyway.

    Edited by TarickStonefire at 16:29:13 11-02-2013

    Any Netflix library in the world for a couple of quid a month? Gimme!

  • MrE26 11 Feb 2013 18:11:13 1,960 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    2 & 3 were fun action films that were ruined on release here by shockingly bad TV-style dubbing & painfully obvious edits to the violence. 4 was was too over the top & had an awful antagonist, but I'd still planned on watching this.

    Now, I think I'll be waiting for an uncut version.
  • Deleted user 11 February 2013 18:15:07
    Die Hard 4 was good (only seen it once). The thought that it is somehow not true to the Die Hard roots is fucking nonsense. You people are talking about Die Hard ffs.

    Edited by mowgli at 18:18:56 11-02-2013
  • kalel 11 Feb 2013 18:16:18 88,419 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I was quite puzzled as to what they Die Hard routes were for a moment there.
  • Deleted user 11 February 2013 18:19:28
    Oops!
  • Aretak 12 Feb 2013 00:08:06 10,366 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    Die Hard 4 was good (only seen it once). The thought that it is somehow not true to the Die Hard roots is fucking nonsense. You people are talking about Die Hard ffs.
    I guess it depends on what you think makes the first film so good. Personally, I think it's the fact that it's not just all-out action, with explosions going off everywhere in every scene and the main character acting like an indestructible superhuman. For me it's the quiet moments that make Die Hard. The conversations between John and Al, the creeping around the tower sabotaging the terrorists without crashing police cars into their helicopters.

    It's a much better movie than it's given credit for IMO. It's not just some popcorn action schlock like the sequels are. It actually has characters and gives them some depth, and for the most part the action is subdued and comes in short bursts. It's also generally realistic, with John struggling to fight off one or two guys, not a whole army of baddies at once. Granted things escalate towards the end, but it builds up to that rather than just maintaining a three explosions per minute ratio throughout.

    The sad thing is that the original Die Hard just wouldn't get made in today's Hollywood. It doesn't have enough action. There's too much talking. It moves too slowly. But that's also why it's in a different league to any of the sequels.
  • BillMurray 12 Feb 2013 00:31:17 7,792 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Aretak wrote:
    ..John McClane and a Brit in a dodgy accent in it.
    Same as the first film then? ;)

    Edited by BillMurray at 00:45:23 12-02-2013
  • beastmaster 12 Feb 2013 13:35:14 11,599 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Don't know how true it is but it looks as though there's a review embargo till midnight on 14th.

    However, there's an utterly damning review on twitchfilm.


    "A Good Day to Die Hard is the shortest entry in the series by almost half an hour, but still manages to do more damage to the Die Hard property in 97 minutes than anything else in its 25-year history. Dumb, crass and tedious when its predecessors were smart, witty and entertaining, A Good Day to Die Hard is far and away the worst of the five films, and even with its R rating restored, struggles to entertain as a piece of disposable action entertainment on even the basest of levels. The film isn't just bad, it's embarrassing, and news that there is more yet to come only gives further cause for concern."

    http://twitchfilm.com/2013/02/review-a-good-day-to-die-hard.html

    Obviously, I'll see it for myself and decide. Thursday night at the IMAX.

    Edited by beastmaster at 13:36:02 12-02-2013

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • Deleted user 13 February 2013 23:09:07
    So...it's a bit shit:

    http://www.metacritic.com/movie/a-good-day-to-die-hard
  • Mola_Ram 13 Feb 2013 23:13:41 7,682 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Come on now, let's at least wait until beastmaster reviews it.
  • cubbymoore 13 Feb 2013 23:16:52 36,501 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    Come on now, let's at least wait until beastmaster reviews the first hour of it.
  • beastmaster 13 Feb 2013 23:17:52 11,599 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    10/10 - It was perfect :-)

    I can't believe it's THAT bad. But it probably is.

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • Mola_Ram 13 Feb 2013 23:21:57 7,682 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I plan to watch the first 10 minutes, walk out, and give it 10/10. How about THAT for going against expectations.
  • gooner77 14 Feb 2013 08:19:09 802 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    2 stars in empire. think I'll watch wreck it Ralph instead
  • beastmaster 14 Feb 2013 08:51:40 11,599 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The question is though will it make enough cash despite scathing reviews that would get Simon Gruber interested (if he were still alive)? If so, they'll make another one.

    Perhaps there's another member of the Gruber family they can dig up?

    Die Hard 6: Meet what's left of the Grubers

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • Ultrasoundwave 14 Feb 2013 09:02:14 3,337 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    beastmaster wrote:
    Die Hard 6: Meet the Grubers
    Fixed.

    Reading through that Empire review things dont look good, basically sounds like they've followed the 4.0 formula, but basically made it even worse.

    Not sure why they thought the guy who directed Max Payne and The Omen remake was the best choice TBH......

    "The worst part is, I'll have to have the break-up sex with myself!"

  • fletch7100 14 Feb 2013 09:15:20 7,353 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Even Ign went as far as 6.2 in its review

    With Die hard 3 didn't it start off as a script for a lethal weapon film?

    Next film, more in pace with DH1 and set on Christmas Eve again. Guess thats why the first one is one of my favourite Christmas themed films. Nothing celebrates Christmas more than by killing the bad guys, destroying a building and rescuing the people you love :)
  • Dougs 14 Feb 2013 09:16:17 68,411 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Disappointing, but not surprising.
  • spindizzy 14 Feb 2013 09:32:52 6,541 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    espibara wrote:
    TarickStonefire wrote:
    Die Hard is not Die Hard if it's not Bruce Willis trapped in a single location (and no, New York doesn't count, Die Hard 3, even though you were a lot of fun and definitely get an Honorary Membership of the Real Die Hard Movie Club).

    4 was a mostly awful movie only made good in a few parts by Willis being flippantly McClane-ish, but it was mostly awful and not remotely close to being a Die Hard movie.

    I was in no way surprised to recently learn the Staggeringly Undertalented Len Wiseman was the director. I cannot understand how he keeps getting gigs apart from the fact that Crappy Big Budget Marquee Name Movies clearly make enough money to warrant his continued employment; it sure as shit ain't based on directorial panache and skill.
    Len Wiseman is a top guy and pretty talented.

    I met him once (didnt get to meet his wife though sob sob) and he genuinely is a top bloke.

    All his films in my eyes have been okay.

    remember though Len Wiseman was hired to direct Die Hard 4.0. He didnt write the script or the screenplay. He was just the director and I though he did a pretty good job with it.

    For what its worth I also enjoyed the 2012 Total Recall too.
    Me too! I watched it, and apart from a totally unnecessary and implausible fight with a geriatric at the end (oh, and a basic misunderstanding of how gravity works), I thought it was pretty well done (and I really, really, really don't understand the veneration for the rubbish - but fun - original).

    And anyway any film with Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel in can't be ALL bad...

    Die Hard 4.0 was utter bobbins though. I watched it at the cinema and almost left at the fighter-jet-surfing scene...
  • nickthegun 14 Feb 2013 09:34:42 60,452 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    fletch7100 wrote:
    With Die hard 3 didn't it start off as a script for a lethal weapon film?
    I think they all started as a script for something else. Die Hard is based on a sequel to a Frank Sinatra movie, Die Hard 2 was based on a book with more or less the same story but the lead was name swapped for John McClane, Die Hard 3 was indeed a Lethal Weapon movie and Die Hard 4 was based on a old script that was scheduled to shoot in 2001 but was canned because of 9/11 and later resurrected as a Die Hard movie.

    Seems like the only one with an original 'Die Hard' script is also the one that sucks the most balls.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • nickthegun 14 Feb 2013 09:36:11 60,452 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    spindizzy wrote:

    And anyway any film with Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel in can't be ALL bad...
    Biel is, in fact, one of the few, reliable gold standards of shite left in movies. I dont think she has been in even one decent film.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • Maturin 14 Feb 2013 10:13:39 3,098 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Die Hard is based on the book Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorpe. A sequel to his earlier novel Detective.

    Its a great book and lots of it remain in the film. Though the hero is in his sixties and Holly is his daughter. And she's an annoying coke fiend like Ellis. Many of Die Hard's set pieces are from the book. But there are lots of differences too.
  • Dougs 14 Feb 2013 10:26:20 68,411 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Might check those out, cheers.
  • Scurrminator 14 Feb 2013 10:44:16 8,437 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    fletch7100 wrote:
    With Die hard 3 didn't it start off as a script for a lethal weapon film?
    I think they all started as a script for something else. Die Hard is based on a sequel to a Frank Sinatra movie, Die Hard 2 was based on a book with more or less the same story but the lead was name swapped for John McClane, Die Hard 3 was indeed a Lethal Weapon movie and Die Hard 4 was based on a old script that was scheduled to shoot in 2001 but was canned because of 9/11 and later resurrected as a Die Hard movie.

    Seems like the only one with an original 'Die Hard' script is also the one that sucks the most balls.
    Live Free or Die Hard was based on an article in Wired called A Farewell to Arms

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • nickthegun 14 Feb 2013 10:53:07 60,452 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The script im referring to was based on that and the film was to be called 'WW3.com', which in turn then formed the basis of Die Hard 4.

    Pedantry: Check yourself, before you wreck yourself.

    Edited by nickthegun at 10:54:19 14-02-2013

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • captbirdseye 14 Feb 2013 11:05:46 5,100 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Len Wiseman and talented are clearly words that shouldn't be mixed together.

    I wonder if he came from the same class as the other hack Paul W.S. Anderson who ranks just as bad as Wiseman. How these two get jobs is beyond me considering how critically bad all their films are.....but people will pay for shite!

    Edited by captbirdseye at 11:07:40 14-02-2013
  • nickthegun 14 Feb 2013 11:16:29 60,452 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    hes only directed four films and, certainly, the first underworld film is actually pretty decent.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • cubbymoore 14 Feb 2013 11:21:36 36,501 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    captbirdseye wrote:
    I wonder if he came from the same class as the other hack Paul W.S. Anderson who ranks just as bad as Wiseman. How these two get jobs is beyond me considering how critically bad all their films are.....but people will pay for shite!
    A director who would happily do what the producers want is quite attractive in the days of test screenings being so important. I bet they bend to anything, they don't seem to be the protective type.
  • Deleted user 14 February 2013 11:48:29
    Len wisemans films are actually okay,

    The flack he Got for Die Hard 4 was unfair.

    He only "directed" the film he didnt write the fucking script or the plot just directed the fucking thing.

    The action scenes were well done, it was fast moving and shot with a great visual style. Not his fault the script was basic, the bad guy rubbish and Fox edited out the violence to keep it PG-13.

    He also brought it in over 25% under budget.
  • beastmaster 14 Feb 2013 11:57:39 11,599 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Choice of director is with Willis, I'm sure of it. I've got a feeling it's going to be a commercial hit but perhaps the reviews and audience reception it gets may make him think a bit harder next time.

    Who knows, the kids may love it and it'll make a fuckton of cash.

    I'm quite looking forward to seeing this tonight but with a lot less than usual beastmaster enthusiasm. probably a good thing.

    I've still not seen Bullet To The Head but are the days of the 'old guard' numbered? It looks as though the latest entries have flopped (let's see about this film). However, it could be that their latest films were a bit shit.

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • Page

    of 10 First / Last

Log in or register to reply