Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Captaindemotion, Sep 1, 2011.
21A? What was I thinking!
I think the last one is the weakest, only because the plot was too "grand" for it to really fit into McClane pretty much just been the everyman in the wrong place at the wrong time. But here he gets involved in a national incident that'd likely have pretty devastating effects on things? It just really didn't seem to fit into the "Die Hard Universe."
I still enjoyed though but it had it's problems, also being PG-13 harmed it and the R-Rated/"Unrated" cut doesn't improve things. Just over LFaDH I'd put Die Hard 2 which also has some problems. Die Hard itself is obviously an endless classic and Vengeance is just pure awesome.
Zero stars from Ebert!
Actually, one and a half stars - your link goes to a 404 page
He had it at zero stars a few hours ago.
Guess he changed his mind.
Still, one and a half still isn't that hot...
It was always going to be rubbish
It's all about that 12A rating these days, watered down psih
Ummm... That review credits Richard Roeper, not Ebert.
You have to wonder how relevant rottentomatoes think they are, since the critics give it 14% and the nearly 27.5 thousand bum-on-seat reviews give it 82%.
I wonder how it would have fared with the critics had it not fallen under the Die Hard franchise umbrella.
We going to do an actual proper review thread since this was essentially the lead up thread? I'll start one.
Die Hard V is probably the very definition of "mindless action movie". The problem is that there have been some VERY smart action movies like Terminator 2 and the original Die Hard over the years.
Fans really should be expecting more in terms of quality.
The critics all share the same criticisms, so I guess it's pretty valid.
It sounds so bad that I almost want to see it, just so I can keep making fun of it.
It's only valid if the cinema-going public have the same experience as the critics, which is clearly not happening. There's no way such a huge disparity in rating can reflect well on the critics.
I'll reserve judgement until I see it. However, one of the frequent complaints I've seen is one also (rightfully) levelled at Live Free..., namely that McClane is no longer a reluctant everyman, unwillingly drawn into a dnagerous situation, but is an invulnerable superman, defeating everything in his path. If that's right, then the makers of this movie, like those of the last one, seem to have overlooked much of what made the original movie and character so appealing and memorable.
It won't matter one way or the other. There are all too many movies that are reviewed terribly (almost always deservedly so) that go on to make ridiculous amounts of money. And vice versa.
The human adventure continues...
I'm still looking forward to seeing the new movie.
I saw the film last night at the Arclight Cinemas in Sherman Oaks. Save your money, this movie is garbage. Just plain awful.
Conversely, I saw it earlier today. Spend your money, it was great, go watch.
I didn't spend money, didn't see it, and have no thoughts on this subject.
Separate names with a comma.