A Good Day to Die Hard

Die Hard 5?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 13 41.9%
  • No

    Votes: 8 25.8%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 10 32.3%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .

kongisking

Active member
indy4242 said:
Very well stated. Of the "resurrection of the character" movies that came out in the last few years of the 2000s, I think LFoDH was the best - and, ironically, I also think it was the closest to Die Hard in terms of tone.

While I still love KOTCS, that movie has remained more or less constant in my mind, while LFoDH has been better each time I've watched it. I even enjoy Timothy Olyphant as the villain (maybe after getting hooked on Justified).

So another Die Hard 5 (and Die Hard 6, like Willis apparently wants to do?) would be awesome. End the series on a super high note.

No love for Rocky Balboa, which I, being a Rocky fan, thought was perfect in every way?
 

Indy's brother

New member
kongisking said:
Sigh. Am I the only one who loved Live Free as a badass action flick that wasn't afraid to put our hero in some truly awesome action scenes, realism be damned?

You know, I did preface my response by saying that it was slapping on the Die Hard brand to the movie that made it lose a bit of it's shine for me. As an action movie, sure, it delivered. I never refuted that. Upping the ante with the over-the-top USAF fighter jet firing missiles into civilian traffic while our hero goes for a ride on it is a departure from the more realistic charm of DH1 & 2. My opinion, yours is obviously different. Heck, I'm not even calling it a crappy movie. It just didn't feel like John McClane to me.

kongisking said:
My philosophy is, the more epic the action, the cooler it is.

If that kind of movie is what you enjoy, there is nothing wrong with that. Big explosions and hyperreal effects sequences are a big draw and have made Michael Bay a fortune. It doesn't impress me, though.

kongisking said:
And what's so unrealistic about hanging onto the back of a crashing jet plane?

Again, it's a matter of opinion, and mine is that the fighter jet's mere presence was already ridiculous. Then everything that happened with it afterwards just made my suspension of disbelief more and more impossible. Is it physically possible for a man to jump and land on a hovering jet? Sure, why not. The logic of that particular stunt does nothing to ease my feelings on the entire sequence. A sequence that to me, seemed more like something out of the world of the aforementioned Michael Bay. Which is fine for some, but I don't need that kind of flashiness for John McClane.


kongisking said:
And while we're talking about this, how exactly was Willis not like John McClane in that film? He still grumbled about his situation, he still chafed under authority, he still got in insane situations where it was do-or-die, he still said the iconic line (as a person who despises that foul street word, I was relieved that they removed the mother****er bit. Heresy, I know)...he was totally in character. How people claim otherwise is beyond me. :confused:

I suppose you're right, but it seemed (to me) that McClane was not in his universe in the last film, giving me an odd feeling that this was not really McClane, that this wasn't really a DH movie.
kongisking said:
And Matt was a fun sidekick. Mutt would be proud. (y)

On this I am in full agreement with you. I actually thought Matt was more fun than Mutt.
 
kongisking said:
Sigh. Am I the only one who loved Live Free as a badass action flick that wasn't afraid to put our hero in some truly awesome action scenes, realism be damned?

No. There's me too. I would also go as far as saying that I consider Die Hard 4 to be the best of the series. By Far.

kongisking said:
And what's so unrealistic about hanging onto the back of a crashing jet plane? It was hovering in the air, not flying at Mach speeds.

This is exactly what I always thought. Nothing impossible at all. A million times more realistic than the nuclear bomb sequence in Kingdom... or the acrobatic swordfighting scene, where Mutt manages to stand up in perfect balance in the middle of TWO different jeeps running at different speed on a bumpy terrain... or the scene where Mutt swings on the vines in the forest like Tarzan, something that probably not even a professional athlete could do, yet he manages to perfectly land on the same aforementioned jeep (again)... and the list could go on, and on, and on... that's for sure...

Crusade>Raiders said:
Live Free or Die Hard is really similar to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Old action hero comes back after over a decade, tones down the violence a bit, makes some action set-pieces a bit too silly but still fun, has him teaming up with an popular young actor, has a weaker villain than two of the previous three movies, and it not as good as the first or third, but its better than the second one.

With the only difference being that Live Free Or Die Hard is actually a good and well written movie... while Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is not. And... ehr... Kingdom better than Temple? Heck, no way!!

Apart from these digressions... Die Hard 5... yes, why not...

P.S. to all of those who might have wondered: YES, I'M STILL HERE. HELLO EVERYBODY!! ;)
 

kongisking

Active member
The Stranger said:
No. There's me too. I would also go as far as saying that I consider Die Hard 4 to be the best of the series. By Far.



This is exactly what I always thought. Nothing impossible at all. A million times more realistic than the nuclear bomb sequence in Kingdom... or the acrobatic swordfighting scene, where Mutt manages to stand up in perfect balance in the middle of TWO different jeeps running at different speed on a bumpy terrain... or the scene where Mutt swings on the vines in the forest like Tarzan, something that probably not even a professional athlete could do, yet he manages to perfectly land on the same aforementioned jeep (again)... and the list could go on, and on, and on... that's for sure...



With the only difference being that Live Free Or Die Hard is actually a good and well written movie... while Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is not. And... ehr... Kingdom better than Temple? Heck, no way!!

Apart from these digressions... Die Hard 5... yes, why not...

P.S. to all of those who might have wondered: YES, I'M STILL HERE. HELLO EVERYBODY!! ;)

Welcome back, if you were gone. But I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with your love of Live Free, but disagree with your hatred of KOTCS. Which side to choose? Gah, it drives me nuts! :p
 

AndyLGR

Active member
I thought die hard 4 was a strong entry in the series, as good as the previous 2 sequels. I can understand the feeling that the movie doesnt quite feel like a DH film, maybe thats down to amount of time since 3, or the the addition of more seemingly OTT FX, or maybe it's to do with the setting (and i think thats true of the 3rd film too) in that its not confined like the first one does do well.

Also I think it's hard to pick a film out of the 4 that's a dud, certainly 4.0 managed to be a good film after such a long time away which I think KOTCS for example didn't quite manage.

I think that all the villains in the sequels suffer from being compared to the fantastic Alan rickman on the original and they just don't match up.

Anyway for me 5 is a welcome addition to the franchise.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Hmmm

"A Good Day, to Die Hard"

They're certainly running out of puns.

I hear Die Hard 6 is in the works too. It casts Whoopie Goldberg and Bruce trapped in a Monestary and the title is "Old Habits Die Hard"...
 
Well, I've read that the producers are currently searching for a young actor to play McClane's son in the next film. And the plan is to make him the co-protagonist. Now, I have to admit that I found this thing to be really annoying, especially when I read that the list of names includes Aaron Paul, Milo Ventimiglia, Paul Dano, Ben Foster and Paul Walker.

Come on. Paul Dano??? Milo Ventimiglia?? Really??
I personally think that (maybe) with the exception of Paul Walker, the others are just plain horrible choices. Ben Foster is pretty good actually but, hey, he looks even worse than Bruce. Who is 56 years old.

I'm starting to get tired of this typical Hollywood crap. I mean, what's the point in constantly pairing an aging film legend to a completely talentless and uninteresting newcomer?
Just to try and appeal to teens?? No, thanks. They hope to revive every possible franchise, and they drop the ball all the times. With all due respect, well, f**k.

Don't they realize that when people go to see a new chapter in a long going film series, is because they are fond of the original characters and not their damn new sidekicks??
We don't want another Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.
Just bring back good ol' John McClane, and stop with this family oriented rubbish.
 

Goonie

New member
The Stranger said:
Well, I've read that the producers are currently searching for a young actor to play McClane's son in the next film. And the plan is to make him the co-protagonist. Now, I have to admit that I found this thing to be really annoying, especially when I read that the list of names includes Aaron Paul, Milo Ventimiglia, Paul Dano, Ben Foster and Paul Walker.

I'm annoyed that Shia LeBeouf wasn't chosen.:whip:
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Three and Four were the only good ones, hopefully the trend continues.

I can see not liking Die Harder due to it being a blatant rip-off of Die Hard, but what did you not like Die Hard? Just Curious
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Henry Jones VII said:
looks crap:rolleyes:
...the presence of such a glorious wordsmith who puts his peers to shame is always treat. Keep it up, sir.




Anyway, it does look more in line with the rest of the series than the previous part. Which wasn't bad as a standalone piece, just didn't feel very Die Hard.

One complaint though... the originals didn't need any and T'n'A to be successful. Still, I suppose it is A Good Day to Be Hard.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
No...but it was still there. :)

There was some impressive hosepipe on display.

die-hard.jpg
 
Henry W Jones said:
I can see not liking Die Harder due to it being a blatant rip-off of Die Hard, but what did you not like Die Hard? Just Curious

Didn't like the character, didn't like his lines, the location, the other actors. That he got beat up was fine, but he wasn't all that likable or interesting. I wasn't rooting for him.

I thought he was great in Moonlighting though, where he pretty much established his go to attitude.

I've written them off so long ago, any memories are faint.
 
Top