Escape to the Movies: A Good Day to Die Hard

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Falseprophet:
Damn, I think I have seen every previous Bruce Willis film. Curse this time of year and its lack of decent cinema!

Interestingly, this is the first Die Hard film that was actually written to be a Die Hard film. The first two were based on completely unrelated books--the first was a sequel to a book that had been been made into a 1968 film starring Frank Sinatra. The third and fourth films were screenplays floating around Hollywood where they penciled in John McClane for the main character.

luvd1:
Do people remember the broken glass scene in the first die hard? Where the bad guys realise JM is bare footed so they shoot out all the windows covering the floor with broken glass so he's trapped or has to run across the room slicing his feet to ribbons, which he does and in the next scene you see a floor covered in blood and John McClain in agony pulling glass out of his feet while smoking. And now we have him thrown from a helicopter through a glass window, fall through more glass celings and only get a graze.

I was rewatching the series recently, and I pinpointed the moment John McClane changes from vulnerable everyman to invincible superman: Halfway through Die Hard With a Vengeance (i.e. III) he's shot forty feet into the air by a high pressure waterspout and lands on the side of a road with no injuries.

punipunipyo:
Oh, I watched the one with Jet-Lee in, and I thought it was so pitiful (making Jet looking like the honorable good guy who's ass kicking the stupid cops around)I skipped all the die hard that came after that...

Jet Li wasn't in any of the Die Hard films. Were you thinking of Lethal Weapon 4?

oh yeah!~ that one... hahaha... sorry... I only watched the die hard1, and the one with the truck VS jet fighter one... but really... both DieHard/LethalW to me, didn't make much difference in impressions that's why I get them wrong... sorry... haha

Yeah...it was very average (probably the worst of the lot to be honest) and this is coming from a Die Hard, Die Hard fan! The first Die Hard is (to me) the best action movie ever made and the 3rd one comes pretty close to beating it too. This one was boring (I could tell from the trailers it was going to be) but I was hoping to be surprised (after all, it's rated R instead of PG!) but...it wasn't.

In fact, to me it wasn't even a 'Die Hard' movie! They could have simply called it 'Mother Russia' and changed the name of Bruce Willis's character to 'Joe McJoejoe' and it would have been the same thing. At least the 4th movie still felt like a Die Hard movie...this one didn't. Pretty disappointing to be honest (since the Stallone and Arnie movies were pretty bad too)

rickynumber24:

piscian:
Chernobyl isn't Russian :P

You'd be amazed how many people forget that.

Amazed? I doubt that I'll be amazed that people that "exported democracy" to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan(our goverment was stupid enough to try the same thing that US did in previous two, but US somehow decided that they'll do better. Of course I'm sure that high reserves of copper and lithium are worth a few hundred thousand "patriots"), once again Iraq and still being able to believe in "bad russians" don't know much.
Sorry for this little off-topic outrage, just tired of it.

Bob you do not have to tell us why the original Die Hard was good, we all saw it and for those who haven't you end up telling them not to watch the rest of the review because of spoilers.

The fact that you keep doing these quicky deconstructions in almost every review comes off as pretentious and it gets old after a while. I was really hoping you wouldn't do this for Die Hard, not because seeing you deconstruct it makes the movie less enjoyable, but because even if you don't pick up on any of the trope subverting moments in Die Hard, it's still a great action movie on the action alone. So I thought this movie really didn't need it.

The rest of the review was pretty good though.

Father Time:
The fact that you keep doing these quicky deconstructions in almost every review comes off as pretentious and it gets old after a while.

Why? Because he goes into the history of the franchise and why it was successful? You're most likely just using the word "pretentious" because you don't like people being smarter and/or more knowledgeable than you are.

The Fifth Element is one of my favorite movies. They should do another one of those, but with Bruce in a supporting role as, I don't know, the Terran president or something.

On second thought, scrap that. I don't want that movie screwed up.

Markunator:

Father Time:
The fact that you keep doing these quicky deconstructions in almost every review comes off as pretentious and it gets old after a while.

Why? Because he goes into the history of the franchise and why it was successful? You're most likely just using the word "pretentious" because you don't like people being smarter and/or more knowledgeable than you are.

Fans of the series don't need a deconstruction telling them why it's good. It gets annoying, and there's this air of "I like this movie for all these smart people reasons, rather than enjoying it for the simple reasons".

Markunator:

Father Time:

Markunator:

Why? Because he goes into the history of the franchise and why it was successful? You're most likely just using the word "pretentious" because you don't like people being smarter and/or more knowledgeable than you are.

Fans of the series don't need a deconstruction telling them why it's good. It gets annoying, and there's this air of "I like this movie for all these smart people reasons, rather than enjoying it for the simple reasons".

What the hell are you even talking about? I think you're just desperately digging for reasons to harp on Bob. And smart people often tend to enjoy films for smart people reasons - not that you would know anything about that ...

You know what is definitely not a sign of intelligence. Calling people idiots just because they have a different opinion than you.

It is my opinion that Bob comes across as pretentious for the reasons I mentioned and besides most smart people can enjoy things for simple reasons (see porn and the 3 Stooges).

Father Time:

Markunator:

Father Time:

Fans of the series don't need a deconstruction telling them why it's good. It gets annoying, and there's this air of "I like this movie for all these smart people reasons, rather than enjoying it for the simple reasons".

What the hell are you even talking about? I think you're just desperately digging for reasons to harp on Bob. And smart people often tend to enjoy films for smart people reasons - not that you would know anything about that ...

You know what is definitely not a sign of intelligence. Calling people idiots just because they have a different opinion than you.

It is my opinion that Bob comes across as pretentious for the reasons I mentioned and besides most smart people can enjoy things for simple reasons (see porn and the 3 Stooges).

I'm sorry, but I just cannot fathom how it can be pretentious to go into detail about a certain franchise? Bob does this in lots of his reviews, what's so different about this one?

Markunator:

Father Time:

Markunator:

What the hell are you even talking about? I think you're just desperately digging for reasons to harp on Bob. And smart people often tend to enjoy films for smart people reasons - not that you would know anything about that ...

You know what is definitely not a sign of intelligence. Calling people idiots just because they have a different opinion than you.

It is my opinion that Bob comes across as pretentious for the reasons I mentioned and besides most smart people can enjoy things for simple reasons (see porn and the 3 Stooges).

I'm sorry, but I just cannot fathom how it can be pretentious to go into detail about a certain franchise? Bob does this in lots of his reviews, what's so different about this one?

It's not going into detail it's just these deconstruction that I think go into unnecessary detail and could be summed up without so much movie critic jargon (if that makes sense).

You could say Die Hard was a "fresh take on the genre by having the protagonist being an ordinary cop" instead of saying "it subverted the old tropes of X Y and Z". I don't know it seems like he uses too much jargon and big words and it comes across as being a little too pleased with himself.

My opinion though, guess it's not as shared as I thought.

No Bob, most action films get the stab of death from bourgeois critics. Even if they were pretty damn good. And your review has no credibility at all because you painted Chernobyl as 'something Russian' but most well informed people know that it's not in Russia, it's in the Ukraine as most people above me already mentioned. I enjoyed and took Die Hard 5 for what it is: a silly over-the-top action film which can be enjoyed with popcorn and a soda to wash it down with. And if people gave the first 3 Die Hard films more credit then they actually deserved, well, at least the first two had some good plot turns and twists but in after part two, you could guess what was going to happen in the third one.

AntiChrist:

piscian:
Chernobyl isn't Russian :P

I was about to mention that as well. (^-^)

Yeah, that's something that everyone should have noticed. I mean, I have no problem with a small factual error, but you should never talk about a city or region you don't know anything about, especially because regional sovereignty can be such a sensitive issue. I mean, this is on par with saying that Sri Lanka is Indian or that Sydney is the capital of Australia.

John the Gamer:
The Fifth Element is one of my favorite movies. They should do another one of those, but with Bruce in a supporting role as, I don't know, the Terran president or something.

On second thought, scrap that. I don't want that movie screwed up.

QFT, on both points.

I think I've seen about three quarters of those movies. (Also: Hudson Hawk = awesome.)

And I agree with the ranking at the end too (though I haven't seen 5 yet). But as another poster already said, it's the only ranking that makes sense.

piscian:
Chernobyl isn't Russian :P

Yep. On that note, did they explain how the McClanes got to Chernobyl? The borders between Russia and the Ukrain aren't exactly closed but casual travel also isn't exactly easy either, afaik.

Honestly Bob, I walked into 5 struggling to remember what happened in 4. I know 1 through 3 but 4 and now 5 are lost to me.

Just saw it last night, and I couldn't agree more. At least Live Free or Die Hard had a new digital age villan to put up against aging McLane, but this one did nothing with the whole he's in a different country thing at all.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here