Off Topic Messages

Die Hard(s) - quick review

Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:19 am

Die Hard, Die Hard 2 and Die Hard 3 are classics of the genre.

Die Hard 4 is shite. Or at least I thought it was shite, that was until I saw Die Hard 5. Now THAT was shite.

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:38 am

mike edwards66 wrote:Die Hard, Die Hard 2 and Die Hard 3 are classics of the genre.

Die Hard 4 is shite. Or at least I thought it was shite, that was until I saw Die Hard 5. Now THAT was shite.


You've probably seen over 10 hours of Bruce Willis and "Die Hard." That's got to count for something.

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:18 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
mike edwards66 wrote:Die Hard, Die Hard 2 and Die Hard 3 are classics of the genre.

Die Hard 4 is shite. Or at least I thought it was shite, that was until I saw Die Hard 5. Now THAT was shite.


You've probably seen over 10 hours of Bruce Willis and "Die Hard." That's got to count for something.


Yep, every cloud eh.....

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:35 pm

Loved the first 4 movies ! 5 was very poor !!!

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:46 pm

5 was dire,liked the rest

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:38 pm

I think the first film is definitely the best one out of the five, and is one of my all-time favourite action movies. The second and third are also very good, especially the third film, the interplay between Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson is brilliant. I thought the fourth was very average but still entertaining but the fifth was terrible.

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:02 pm

Die Hard was released 25 years ago this year and remains among the very best films of its kind -- it's also one of the most influential action movies of the past quarter century, having spawned dozens of imitators. Its sequels included . . . What made Die Hard standout during the era of the action film was the quality of this film's production, met with outstanding direction and a script that was smart, coherent and original, yet peppered with familiarity. It's the cinema of Budd Boetticher writ large, with Bruce Willis in place of Randolph Scott, and the Nakatomi Plaza taking the place of the old west, although met with The Towering Inferno. Willis is terrific in the lead, whilst Alan Rickman excels as a quasi-pantomime villain, whose Hans Gruber leads a band of non-American terrorists and criminals; types that would be cut-out for future films of this nature. And from Die Hard 2 to Sudden Death, Under Siege and Air Force One, there would be many. Even in 2013, with White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen, the template for Die Hard is sturdy, reliable and oft relied upon, whilst the original's influence seems undiminished. Die Hard 2 and Die Hard: With a Vengeance were fine sequels, offering creativity and great action that was buoyed considerably by splendid direction and Bruce Willis' zeal for the character of John McClane. But the fourth instalment was uninspired and the recent, A Good Day to Die Hard, was, quite frankly, abysmal.

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:16 pm

I must be among the very few who found the fourth to be very entertaining, was it in the class of the original? Of course not, but neither were 2 and 3 which I rate along side the 4th, now the 5th? ooooooooooft! Two hours of my life lost. lol

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:20 am

mike edwards66 wrote:Die Hard, Die Hard 2 and Die Hard 3 are classics of the genre.

Die Hard 4 is shite. Or at least I thought it was shite, that was until I saw Die Hard 5. Now THAT was shite.


I loved the first and third films. Can watch those over and over. I didn't like the second much at all, and never saw the fourth......

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:24 am

greystoke wrote:Die Hard was released 25 years ago this year and remains among the very best films of its kind -- it's also one of the most influential action movies of the past quarter century, having spawned dozens of imitators. Its sequels included . . . What made Die Hard standout during the era of the action film was the quality of this film's production, met with outstanding direction and a script that was smart, coherent and original, yet peppered with familiarity. It's the cinema of Budd Boetticher writ large, with Bruce Willis in place of Randolph Scott, and the Nakatomi Plaza taking the place of the old west, although met with The Towering Inferno. Willis is terrific in the lead, whilst Alan Rickman excels as a quasi-pantomime villain, whose Hans Gruber leads a band of non-American terrorists and criminals; types that would be cut-out for future films of this nature. And from Die Hard 2 to Sudden Death, Under Siege and Air Force One, there would be many. Even in 2013, with White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen, the template for Die Hard is sturdy, reliable and oft relied upon, whilst the original's influence seems undiminished. Die Hard 2 and Die Hard: With a Vengeance were fine sequels, offering creativity and great action that was buoyed considerably by splendid direction and Bruce Willis' zeal for the character of John McClane. But the fourth instalment was uninspired and the recent, A Good Day to Die Hard, was, quite frankly, abysmal.


Thanks greystoke for the interesting and enlightening reply.

There is apparently going to be a number 6. Here are my suggestions/observations of where the franchise went wrong, and what needs to happen to restore it to it's former lustre.


In no particular order:


Change of director is needed. The first three, particularly 1 and 3 looked great, slick and bright. By contrast, 4 and particularly 5 looked awful, dark, dingy, grainy and jerky.

Reinstate the one main super (or as said above 'quasi-pantomine') villian. McClane needs one focal point of evil to aim at.

KISS (keep it simple stupid). A main part of the appeal of the first one was in the dicotomy of an average Joe, ordinary guy, that was the McClane character, finding himself out of his depth in an extraordinary situation. Turning McClane into some kind of superhero, who is able, for example, to take out a hovering helicopter with a flying car is dumb in the extreme.

Ditch the son, and bring back the wife.

Make Bruce the star/main character again. If he has to have a sidekick bring back Samuel L. Jackson.

Bruce needs to wear a rug. Seriously, he just doesn't look like McClane with his head shaved.

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:47 pm

mike edwards66 wrote:Die Hard, Die Hard 2 and Die Hard 3 are classics of the genre.

Die Hard 4 is shite. Or at least I thought it was shite, that was until I saw Die Hard 5. Now THAT was shite.


Agree with you here .....except DH2,not a fan of that one.

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:44 pm

I like 'em all... except for the fifth one. Ack.

Re: Die Hard(s) - quick review

Fri Jan 10, 2014 1:27 am

LSP-4445 wrote:
mike edwards66 wrote:Die Hard, Die Hard 2 and Die Hard 3 are classics of the genre.

Die Hard 4 is shite. Or at least I thought it was shite, that was until I saw Die Hard 5. Now THAT was shite.


Agree with you here .....except DH2,not a fan of that one.


DH2 is comparatively, perhaps the weaker of the first three. But it's still pretty darn good.

Admittiedly DH2 looks dated now. Compare it to 'The Last Boy Scout', for example, which still looks fresh.