Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Captaindemotion, Sep 1, 2011.
Anyone who pays money for another Die Hard movie after the last one deserves whatever they get
^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.
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.
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.
It would have already been something had they used computers with the Nakatomi logo on them. Or if the hacker from Die Hard (who was the only bad guy to survive) had returned.
I love nuTrek and liked T3 and T4 (I even prefer Salvation to T3, for what it's worth). I don't hate DH4.0, I even bought it on DVD. It's an okay movie with some great sequences, but it's just not a patch on its predecessors, even Die Harder. Jarod Russell's analysis of it earlier was spot-on, IMHO. Okay is not good enough for Die Hard - the original is the best action movie ever IMHO and, prior to 4.0 letting the side down, it had been the best action franchise ever (I think Mr Bourne has now stolen the title).
Edit - it seems that Fox are denying the Russia story.
I want the next Die Hard to be on a par with the original or With a Vengeance; I'd settle for one up to DH2. But the pairing of Moore and Woods does not fill me with confidence.
T3 was a surprisngly lightweight film that felt like a spoof for much of it, but which had a phenomanlly dark ending. T4 was just terrible. Until sucker Punch I'd never seen a film feature so many explosions yet be so dull!
I'm amazed anyone dislikes NuTrek, I thought it was brilliant.
Yes, it's amazing people have a different opinion than you.
At least with T3 or T4 or NuTrek we have seen the movies before bitching about them.... for the most part.
^ I've said it before, I'll say it again. I'm not bitching about the movie, I'm bitching about the director and writer.
Can you honestly say that the words 'From the director of Max Payne and The Omen [remake] and the writer of X-Mens Origins: Wolverine' get you excited?
Another one? I thoroughly enjoyed the first three ones but after that piece of crap a few years ago I'm dreading the thought of any kind of sequel to this franchise.
The only thing I didn't like about T3 was the stupidity of the T-X (the T-1000 came across as FAR more intelligent), and the Skynet/Virus story. When I saw it in theaters it just missed something. A Wargames kind of back and forth with humans and Skynet before the war starts. In T2, Arnold explains that Skynet became self aware, and that because of that people panicked and tried to pull the plug, and because of that Skynet started to defend itself. That was the tragic element that got completely lost in T3.
Die Hard 2 is one of the greatest sequels of all time.
Seriously, every time I see it I'm prepared to be disappointed but it always surprises me. I'm at the point now where I'm ready to admit that it's actually completely brilliant.
And it has a badass bad guy willing to kill 100 people including old ladies and little children in one strike. And not a pussy wimp that only pretends to blow up the Capitol and then cries about his girlfriend.
Hey man, Die Hard 4 guy totally broke the traffic lights resulting in mad numbers of fender benders. That's some sick twisted shit
I think the problem with 2 is that, whilst Sadler is a great actor, the character is lacking some of the personality that makes Hans and Simon such great foes. Also he has a small army of identikit soldiers rather than the comedy array of terrorists the Gruber brothers had!
Also McClane's jumper is just so early 90s...
I just recently rewatched the whole series in light of the news about a fifth film. And there's no changing my opinion at all, the first three are classics. Even the second one, which is actually my favorite, although it does lose points for making too many cute references to the first film.
With a Vengeance though is probably my favorite now. It starts out with a bang and never lets up. I finally got to completely rewatch Die Hard 4 (refuse to call it by it's real title) because my DVD always messes up haflway though, had to finish the last half on my lap top.
Anyways, it's not a horrible film, it has a great first half, so great in fact that the last half of the film really lets it down. Plus Willis just isn't even trying. It's a shame watching his McClane have so much energy in the first three films only to come to this film and watch him phone it in. I really don't have much to say on it though, it does have some positives. I think I'm the only one who likes Thomas Gabrielle as a villian, and I thought Winstead was good as Lucy. But as an action film it just falls short, they never ramp it up in the second half of the film, it's just...dull. And for a Die Hard film that's a real shame.
My reaction as displayed in a sequence of emoticons describing the exact chain of events transcribing each reaction:
^ Personally, I can't find a smiley to show a tsunami of indifference.
Though, on reflection, while their movies usually leave me indifferent, the thought of this pair of hacks taking over the reins of the once-mighty Die Hard series probably does provoke a reaction along your lines.
I actually thought the Wolverine movie was pretty entertaining, though honestly I don't regard Die Hard as a series requiring a top-calibre director.
Separate names with a comma.