Die Hard V - Not Looking Good...

[Captaindemotion]

Oh dear.

I hate to be so negative, but the first Die Hard movie is, for my money, the best action movie ever. And I love the next two in the series, even the much maligned Die Hard 2: Die Harder.

Die Hard 4.0 had its moments, but was let down by Les Wiseman's humdrum direction (sir, you're no John McTiernan) and the fact that someone took soap and water to John McClane's previously gloriously filthy potty mouth.

Those of us hoping for a return to form are unlikely to be heartened by the fact that DH5 will apparently pair up journeyman director John Moore (who so far has given us forgettable remakes of The Omen and Flight of the Phoenix, as well as May Payne and Behind Enemy Lines) with writer Skip Woods, of Wolverine and The A-Team fame (or forgettability).

Now, maybe this will be the movie where the two of them prove the naysayers wrong... but I'm not optimistic. Anyone care to change my mind?

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=81665

http://www.deadline.com/2011/08/joh...-hard-5-directing-derby-now-wholl-helm-red-2/

After a long search process, 20th Century Fox and Bruce Willis have just chosen John Moore to direct Die Hard 5. The film will shoot in Russia

As for Die Hard 5, Moore is in final negotiations and was in the running through the entire search as Fox tried to find a filmmaker that pleased Willis and the studio execs that have to shoot this movie in Russia and bring it in on a budget and a tight schedule. Fox has been looking for a new director since Noam Murro left the picture after he got the job helming 300: Battle Of Artemisia for Warner Bros. The studio started with a wish list of directors to helm the script by Skip Woods that included Joe Cornish (who directed Attack the Block), Fast Five helmer Justin Lin, Drive director Nicolas Winding Refn, and Moore. More recently, I’d heard Fox had conversations with helmers that included Gary Fleder, Paul McGuigan and 1408 helmer Mikael Hafstrom.

Moore didn’t have to necessarily sell Fox; the studio loves the Irishman. But he did have to convince Willis, who has been very hands-on in the selection of Die Hard directors. Moore and Willis had long meetings and Willis was swayed by Moore’s love for the John McClane character, and his grasp of how to shoot practical, non-CGI-heavy action scenes that have been a hallmark of the Die Hard series.

 

[Starkers]

non-cgi heavy actions scenes? So McClane was really stood on and F-35 in 4.0 then?

I am amused that Joe Cornish was in with a shout for this!

I just hope to god they make it a 15 and don't have the entire world held hostage now! They need to go back to basics, maybe not a building again but something like the airport in 2 (only done a lot better!)

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Yeah, I actually think someone like Joe Cornish might have been what the franchise needed to get it back to basics. I'm sure he's like the rest of us who saw the original on VHS a zillion times.

 

[Starkers]

I'm trying to remember if he and Adam ever did Toy Hard...heck they did every other blockbuster!

 

[captcalhoun]

you gotta love the internet, haven't you? wow, they've named a director and a writer and everyone starts nerd-raging before a single frame is shot...



personally, i liked The A-Team and so don't have any worries and am not overly concerned about the director.

i'm sorry, i'll leave the internet now...

 

[Servo]

They need to go back to basics, maybe not a building again but something like the airport in 2 (only done a lot better!)

Why, what was wrong with DH2?

 

[Captaindemotion]

you gotta love the internet, haven't you? wow, they've named a director and a writer and everyone starts nerd-raging before a single frame is shot...



personally, i liked The A-Team and so don't have any worries and am not overly concerned about the director.

i'm sorry, i'll leave the internet now...

I'm not 'nerd-raging.' I've simply said that on the basis of the lacklustre previous efforts of said director and writer I'm not optimistic about this movie.

I've said that maybe I'll be proven wrong. But I think it's reasonable to be a little concerned about the future of the once-unsurpassable action franchise given that they've hired two guys with less than stellar CVs to take it forward.

Nothing would make me happier than to eat my words in a year or two when they make a classic Die Hard movie to rank with the first one. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Starkers]

They need to go back to basics, maybe not a building again but something like the airport in 2 (only done a lot better!)

Why, what was wrong with DH2?

Nothing major, it's just my least favourite of the four. Bland villains (odd given William Sadler is a great actor) a situation far too similar to Die Hard, and too much of a nod-nod/wink-wink attitude ("how can the same shit happen to the same guy twice" etc)

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I'd still put it above 4, though.

 

[Sean Aaron]

They need to go back to basics, maybe not a building again but something like the airport in 2 (only done a lot better!)

Why, what was wrong with DH2?

Nothing major, it's just my least favourite of the four. Bland villains (odd given William Sadler is a great actor) a situation far too similar to Die Hard, and too much of a nod-nod/wink-wink attitude ("how can the same shit happen to the same guy twice" etc)

Pretty much why I think it's the weakest of the bunch.

^ I'd still put it above 4, though.

I actually thought 4.0 was pretty good, so I'll have to disagree.

 

[Starkers]

Maybe, I guess I've just had a downer on it longer than I have on 4.0, though I quite liked 4.0.

First is the best though, and third second best (even with the crappy ending)

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ On that we are agreed.

I don't hate 4, I just thought that Len Wiseman's direction was lacklustre and bland; I remember watching the scene in Washington where McClane climbs on top of the taxi to see the chaos around him and thinking how much better McTiernan would have done it. And McTiernan really created a good ensemble in both his movies - the NYPD crew in DHWAV were way more interesting than the supporting cast in 4.

Moore and Woods just strike me as being from the same bland, generic unexciting safe-pair-of-hands stable as Wiseman. They're not Uwe Boll by any means, but they're like Brett Ratner or Brock Eisner. They're just - there. That's it.

 

[Starkers]

Oh yeah, the ensemble in Vengence could have almost justified a film on their own!

 

[FPAlpha]

Nice.. a director with little clout between a powerful (and meddling) studio and a huge main star. Poor guy.. he's basically just a stand in to go through the motions to pretend he's in control of the picture.

I'm done with Die Hard after 4.0 but at least we got 3 good action movies out of the franchise (and the first one redefined the genre altogether).

 

[Shazam!]

Die Hard 2 pisses on Die Hard 4.0 from a great height.

 

[ThunderAeroI]

Well, I have problems with the plot point of crashing planes based on the ILS being incorrect and that there are manholes in a runway.

 

[Trekker4747]

Die Hard is the definitive action movie for over a generation it was the benchmark. "Die Hard on bus", "Die Hard on a plane", etc.

The second one I actually kind of like, though it certainly has its flaws. The third one is just awesome, it almost achieves the awesome of the first.

The fourth one is just Meh. I think it tries to hard to make the scope of McClain's problem bigger which doesn't work. He's not Jack Bauer trying to save a nation he's an over-worked, often suspended, NYC cop who always thrust into bizarre situations. Had he "failed" in his tasks in any of the first three movies things would've ended up mostly okay. (Though the lasting effects of the third movie may have been great.)

The fourth movie had he failed a nation would've been greatly impacted. I mean it's serious shit he gets pulled into in that movie and it doesn't work.

Not to mention Mac Guy just wasn't as good of a side kick as Al Powell or SLJ.

God, if this new movie teams him up with Shia LeBouff....

Well, I have problems with the plot point of crashing planes based on the ILS being incorrect and that there are manholes in a runway.

The ILS thing I'll give you -still roll my eyes at that one- but if I recall it wasn't a "man hole" so much as it was a giant drain grate. Which, yeah, still likely wouldn't be on a runway but is a bit different than a manhole.

 

[ThunderAeroI]

The ILS thing I'll give you -still roll my eyes at that one- but if I recall it wasn't a "man hole" so much as it was a giant drain grate. Which, yeah, still likely wouldn't be on a runway but is a bit different than a manhole.

I may need to rewatch the movie again, but I'm almost positive that either Bruce or the baddies come out of a man hole in the runway as if there was a large tunnel underneath the length of the runway. But a giant drain gate wont be on a runway either.

I honestly can't watch aviation movies because I can't enjoy them.

 

[Trekker4747]

McClain over hears on the CB the landing of the cargo plane, he's talking to the janitor guy with the maps and wonders how quickly he can get to the landing runway.

We next see him running through the series of tunnels (!) under the runways of the airport, he finds the place his looking for and climbs up a ladder. At the top of the ladder is a large drainage grate -probably three feet on each side, at least- that is locked to the ground with a pad-lock. McClain shoots at the lock with his gun, breaking it (and likely giving him a good ring in his ears) and allowing him to try and force the heavy gate open with his back and shoulders.

The gate proves to heavy for him as he ends up wedged between it and the runway surface as the C-130 (?) lands at the runway threshold. I believe he uses his gun to try and support the grate as he tries to wedge through as the slowing plane closes in on him. He manages to dislodge himself from the grate just as the plane gets there and rolls out of the way, the plane's nose wheel strikes the propped-up grate with a crash, dislodging the gun it getting lost to the bottom of the drain shaft, the gate slams "shut."

Yes it should be noted that there's no likely to be any large drainage grates on a runway's surface. Such a thing would simply be too dangerous with too much opportunity to go wrong resulting in "at best" a heavy bump in the middle of the runway as age, weight and rust cause it to cave-in and at worst a very large hole should the grate ever fail or somehow become missing.

Also the plane would have struck the propped up grate going around 40 or 50 miles an hour if not much more and airplane landing gear hardly have the heartiest of suspension systems. The pilot (the captured leader the mercenaries/terrorists were trying to retrieve) almost certainly would have felt the jolt of the plane striking the grate if not plain lost control of the plane on the slick runway (the ground crews were not allowed out to clear the runway of the heavy snow) with his own admission to low visibility.

Personally, I wouldn't let your knowledge of how things work in the real world preclude you from being able to enjoy a movie based entirely in fiction. You may know that's not how things work, I know that's not how things work, but it's one of the cases where you check your knowledge at the door and roll with it.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Title and synopsis:

A Good Day to Die Hard. McClane the Klingon?

http://www.moviehole.net/201146951-its-a-good-day-to-die-hard-on-valentines-day-2013

Since the first Die Hard in 1988, John McClane has found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the skills and attitude to always be the last man standing, making him enemy #1 for terrorists the world over. Now, McClane faces his greatest challenge ever, this time on an international stage, when his estranged son Jack is caught up in the daring prison escape of a rogue Russian leader, and father and son McClane must work together to keep each other alive and keep the world safe for democracy.