A Good Day to Die Hard.

[Deadlift]

Had a night out with the fellas last light, and after a few drinks we all decided to have a laugh at the new Die Hard film.

The action in this movie was so over the top that I lost count of just how many times John or Jack (the son) should actually be dead. Massive explosions, preposterous car chases with more massive explosions. Huge gun fights with even more massive explosions, injuries that would see any normal person in hospital for surgery and not running around Moscow and Chernobyl guns blazing.

The plot of what there was had holes you could park a range rover in, and the dialogue between John and Jack MacLaine was cheesy at best.

BUT the movie was brilliant. There was so much over the top action sometimes I forget to blink, it was funny and there was no pointless romance to be had anywhere. I know the critiques I read slammed this movie for being pointless and dumb. I didn't care, if you like car chases, then this has it in spades. Gun fights galore involving Russian helicopters which were fantastic, the plot was simple and had a few predictable twists. The movie is just uncomplicated fun from start to finish and I loved it.

For a bunch of blokes out for the evening and a pre-curry movie this hits the spot. When we were all sat in the restaurant afterwards, it was all we could talk about for the first half hour.

When I got home, I sat down and watched Prometheus, whilst too a very good movie with lots of hidden religious messages it just didn't hit my "boy" spot. Sure the connection with the Engineers preparing to travel to earth to destroy us 2000 years ago because we had strayed from their beliefs of self sacrifice, which coincidently is when Jesus was crucified wasn't lost on me. It was a good movie but I couldn't help thinking I wish I were watching Die Hard 5 again.

[jgebi]

theirs a die hard 5.... MUST SEE, sounds perfect to

[eldargal]

You know geek culture is mainstream when the title of a Die Hard film is based on a Star Trek quote.:rolleyes:

[scadugenga]

You know geek culture is mainstream when the title of a Die Hard film is based on a Star Trek quote.:rolleyes:

Which is itself a common mistranslation of the Lakota (Sioux if you want to piss 'em off) war cry.

Somehow, I think it's more likely to derive from that than Star Trek. :cool:

[Wolfshade]

What you want is to wait for the DVD version, the cinema version was paired down by the producers to give it a lower certificate and therefore a larger audience. When the extended/uncut version comes out at a higher rating it will be a much better film, but I have to agree with Mark Kormode on this that this is a poor film and as the franchise continues so the films get worse.

[Wildeybeast]

theirs a die hard 5.... MUST SEE, sounds perfect to

No there isn't. There is an action film starring Bruce Willis who coincidentally plays a character with the same name as the Die Hard ones. The Die Hard franchise ended with Die Hard 3 (though you could make an argument for 2). Deadlift illustrates exactly why this is not a Die Hard film. John Mclane is an ordinary schmo who does recklessly stupid things because he has to and gets hurt. He gets shards of glass in his feet and can barley walk, he nearly wrenches his arms out of his sockets and he shoots European terrorist types. He gets dirty and bleeds and he does not star in stupid 12A movies to try and rake in more cash. He does not kill helicopters with cars. He doesn't need his stupid boring children along to help him out. However good an action film it may be, it is not a Die Hard movie. If the trailer, the reviews, Die Hard 4.INSERTSTUPIDTITLE and Willis' 'I couldn't give a toss, where is my money?' promotional work hadn't convinced me this is a film I don't want to see, DL has confirmed my suspicions.


What you want is to wait for the DVD version, the cinema version was paired down by the producers to give it a lower certificate and therefore a larger audience. When the extended/uncut version comes out at a higher rating it will be a much better film, but I have to agree with Mark Kormode on this that this is a poor film and as the franchise continues so the films get worse.

Hello to Jason Isaacs.

[Deadlift]

Or you could just enjoy it for what it is, a fantastic fun movie. Mark Kormode needs to pull his head out his arse once in awhile. I listened to his review on radio 5 too, bloke only likes boring cerebral films that aren't in 3D

[eldargal]

Which is itself a common mistranslation of the Lakota (Sioux if you want to piss 'em off) war cry.

Somehow, I think it's more likely to derive from that than Star Trek. :cool:

That's just what Die Hard fans want you to think.:p

[Wildeybeast]

Or you could just enjoy it for what it is, a fantastic fun movie. Mark Kormode needs to pull his head out his arse once in awhile. I listened to his review on radio 5 too, bloke only likes boring cerebral films that aren't in 3D

1) What it is is the problem. If it were just a Brucie action film, that would be fine. I like mindless action films as much as the next red-blooded male. What it actually is a shameless commercial exploitation of a franchise that ran its course 20 odd years ago. I have no inherent problems with films which exist purely to make money, my issue is when they try to masquerade as something else.

2) Kermode does not need to pull his head out his arse. 3D is a stupid pointless gimick, which again exists to make money. There was no demand for it, people were not crying out for it. The studios invented a demand to make money, then shoved it down our throats. I've yet to see a film which benefited in anyway from 3D, nor one which didn't hurt my eyes whilst watching (though Life of Pi is supposed to make reasonable use of it). And he does not like 'boring cerebral films', whatever they are. He likes films which are stimulating and/or entertaining and well made, just like any sensible person.

[Deadlift]

3D isn't great for all movies, but a pointless gimmick, no personally I like it for the right movie, Dredd was fantastic in 3D, and whilst again just another action movie the 3D aspect was used really well. The slo mo drug effects and a falling body crashing into the screen are just 2 examples.

Most of the animated kids films by Pixar and Sony, Dream works etc etc are now made with 3D in mind and make entertaining use of the visuals. Wreckit Ralph and Madacasger 3 again were 2 great 3D movies.

The problem I have with Kermode and Critics in general, is that they (for me) generally over do their reviews. They look for too much to write or talk about, when a film like the new Die Hard comes along where they cant say too much because its your basic action movie, they love to slam it. Kermode especially insinuates that if a person enjoys a so called dumb film, then they must be dumb, I know it's his job and therefor must prove his salary at the Beeb, but he certainly comes across as its his opinion that counts. His consistent view that film must be an art form has gotten old long ago.

Here's Kermodes top films for 2012, there are about 4 films in there that I have watched, the rest of them don't look that enjoyable to me. I bet you can guess which ones I have seen lol

http://www.imdb.com/list/BT1PHvGM7_Q/

[FireHazard]

I've only seen three of them! :D (The Raid being particularly impressive).

I saw Die Hard last week. I have to say, it did exactly what I expected and nothing more and I was thoroughly entertained.

I must admit, I did think at the time it seemed a bit toned down and that more had been shown in the trailers. Seems I was right.

My only other issue was that Willis seemed... bored. Much like Snipes in Blade Trinity.

Still, I will be adding this to my ever growing movie collection, right next to the other four. There's nothing wrong with a cerebral movie, but sometimes (most of the time for me), you just need to switch your brain off and be entertained :)

PS. As much as I enjoyed it, please let this be the LAST Die Hard movie. Thank you.