Die Hard V - Not Looking Good...

[Lonemagpie]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

McTiernan has a couple movies in development right now but he hasn't directed a movie since Basic in 2003. That is a fucking crime!

Actually the specific crime was perjury - he was jailed for it, which is why he hasn't made a movie in some years...

[barnaclelapse]

I'm still excited.

(Shrugs)

I've loved all four movies so far, and I'm certainly not going to start thinking the worst of this fifth installment when I haven't even seen a production photo.

[Captain Craig]

barnaclelapse wrote:

---

I've loved all four movies so far, and I'm certainly not going to start thinking the worst of this fifth installment when I haven't even seen a production photo.

What?!
This is the internet. We don't do that here.
You take a stand now or don't bother coming back!

[Base_Delta_Zero]

Interesting, though I'd have liked Lucy to be back as the sidekick this time around. Please don't make Shia his son. PLEASE GOD NO!

Chris Evans would be a good son for John McClane. He can act, do action and is a funny bastard to boot. If I were Chris Evans, I'd do Die Hard 5 for free just to say I was in the Die Hard universe, let alone for the opportunity to be McClane's badass son and work with Bruce Willis.

And setting it in Russia gives them the perfect excuse to reintroduce snow. Since Movieverse Russia is always buried under tons of snow. And everyone knows snow=Christmas and Christmas=Die Hard! It's brilliant!

It has to be R, though and filled with F-bombs, non-CGI blood splatter and brutal kills. The lack of the first two really stood out in Live Free or Die Hard.

[The Borgified Corpse]

Agreed they need to bring back the Christmas setting. I also really miss Al Powell & Holly. Considering John & Holly seemed to be completely reconciled at the end of Die Hard 2, it always felt very strange for them to be so totally estranged in Die Hard with a Vengence.

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

Actually the specific crime was perjury - he was jailed for it, which is why he hasn't made a movie in some years...

Oh yeah. I remember the big hubub about that here a while back. Shame they couldn't get McTiernan to do an action movie with Wesley Snipes on some sort of work furlough program.

[JarodRussell]

LOL, they could easily do a prison movie.

[Lonemagpie]

It does need to have the Ode To Joy in it - that was the one disappointing thing about the 4th one, especially given the awesome Sorman Nyman version heard in the trailer!

[JacksonArcher]

I agree with Captaindemotion. John Moore is a typically pedestrian and industrialist filmmaker, who churns out middle-of-the-road, mediocre Hollywood fare. I am not surprised that he has been given the next Die Hard flick, though.

He's been working with 20th Century Fox for a while now, and he was once a contender to direct X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men: First Class and I believe one (or both) of the Wolverine standalone films. So Moore has been on Fox's checklist of journeyman directors, along with Brett Ratner, for a while now. It was only a matter of time before he got scooped up for one of Fox's blockbuster franchises.

Skip Woods is just an awful writer. Once upon a time, the first Wolverine movie had a chance at being good. I read the original script, penned by David Benioff (Training Day), and it was very good. Much better than the film we got. That was back when filmmakers like Bryan Singer were possibly circling the project. Enter Skip Woods into the equation, and that was the beginning of the end. Hitman was also incredibly mediocre and uneven, so his track record is less than reputable.

In my opinion, the last good Die Hard movie was without a doubt Die Hard With a Vengeance. It had a strong villain, and Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson had brilliant chemistry. The original is of course the best, but Live Free or Die Hard felt like a watered down version of a Die Hard movie. I have a feeling the trend is going to continue with A Good Day to Die Hard, but I look forward to being proven wrong.

[Lonemagpie]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

I agree with Captaindemotion. John Moore is a typically pedestrian and industrialist filmmaker, who churns out middle-of-the-road, mediocre Hollywood fare. I am not surprised that he has been given the next Die Hard flick, though.

The IMDB lists "strong use of the colour red" as one of his trademarks - maybe we'll get some actual blood this time around, then.

[Reverend]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

It does need to have the Ode To Joy in it - that was the one disappointing thing about the 4th one, especially given the awesome Sorman Nyman version heard in the trailer!

Damn you! Now I have to go listen to that trailer or I'll have the tune stuck in my head all week...oh never mind, I found a clean version. Hmm...sort of goes down hill after that strong intro. Ironic really.

Agreed though. I was enormously disappointed that track did show up in the film, it seemed to fit perfectly in the trailer.

I forget, did it only crop up in the first one or the first two? I'm fairly sure they didn't use it in the third film.

Strange that it's the tune most associated with the franchise though since it wasn't really used as McClane's theme so much as the German mercs'.

[Yoda]

Anyone who pays money for another Die Hard movie after the last one deserves whatever they get

[OdoWanKenobi]

^A pretty darn fun action movie?

Seriously, I will never understand all of the hate for the last one. It wasn't as good as the original Die Hard, no, but very few action movies are.

[Captain Craig]

OdoWanKenobi wrote:

---

^A pretty darn fun action movie?

Seriously, I will never understand all of the hate for the last one. It wasn't as good as the original Die Hard, no, but very few action movies are.

IMO it's the same people who bitch about Terminator 3 & 4 or nuTrek.

[Yoda]

Terminator 3 and 4 sucked. The Trek reboot was pretty solid.

Not as good as the original is quite the understatement. Not as good as Die Hard covers some pretty good movies, all the way down to abominations like Die Hard 4.

It failed as a Die Hard movie in that the tone was completely wrong. There was no suspense whatsoever. John McClane is apparently now some kind of superhero. The villain was utterly forgettable. They targeted the PG-13. Why? I have no idea. I mean, it was a franchise where anyone who gives a shit about it is already over 18 anyway. It targeted an adult audience 20 fucking years ago. If you wanted to make this movie, I don't know, cast Jason Statham and call it something else. The 13 year olds will probably thank you for it.

So let's say you're willing to enjoy this movie on its own merits apart from being a Die Hard movie, that's fine. I like a big action movie as much as the next guy. But what do they give you? An incredibly stupid Internet terror plot, an obnoxious sidekick straight out of a Mac commercial, and a string of bad action set pieces.

The F35 scene took 'dumb' to a completely new level.

[Starkers]

I kinda liked 4.0, despite the overuse of CGI, a terminally dull villain, and the F-35 scene. I think it just didn't really feel like a Die Hard film as such. I'm not a huge fan of 2, but it's undoubtedly a Die Hard film.

What I'd want from 5...

* A decent villain with personality. Is there another Gruber brother out there?
* Realistic action sequences (up to a point) the great thing about the first one is that there isn't much McClane does that someone wouldn't be able to do in that situation.
*Holly.