T Nation

Die Hard 5

[quote]Nards wrote:

Also, just in case someone comes along with the old “Dude, it’s an action movie! It’s supposed to be dumb with explosions!”…well we do need to be a little discerning, right? I mean you can’t just say with any action movie that someone thinks is bad in all ways (writing, dialog, acting, effects etc.) that it’s all OK because action movies are supposed to be big and dumb.
[/quote]

Yeah its actually that notion that is exactly why we have such an influx of terrible action movies these days. The idea that you can discard the principles of good movie making/story telling at the expense of just having more shit blow up is why we havent seen a good action movie since the 90s.

When I heard the new Die Hard film’s plot would centre on Russia and Moscow specifically I immediately got turned off, even though I was born around that part of the world. It’s just bad form in my opinion – you’re taking everything pure about the original film and trying to forcefully create something you think people will watch because it’s part of the Die Hard franchise. You’re bringing something new, without my foresight and critical thinking, and in your mind (the studio’s) without any consequence, because it has Die Hard and Bruce Willis on the promotional poster for the film.

I agree on the consensus they should have scrapped this notion of McLaine as some supercop hero and returned to the original formula that worked, just a cop with balls caught up in a predicament he couldn’t have ever figured would transpire upon waking up that morning. And yes, in one location.

Needless to say, I probably will never watch it.

I found out that the book that the first movie was based on, Nothing Lasts Forever has been reprinted for the first time in 20 years.
I read it in high school. The main character is called Joe Leland and not John McClane and he’s in his 50s and is visiting his daughter Holly Gennero, not his wife.

The neat thing is this book was the sequel to an earlier book by Roderick Thorp called The Detective which was published in 1966 and made into a movie starring Frank Sinatra…so in a way we could have had Frank Sinatra as John McClane if they’d stayed comepletely true to the first book/movie! That would have been weird!

Oh that’s good…thanks for that!

after watching that review of e everything wrong with DH5 I’m wondering maybe instead of it being a shitty Die Hard installment, it was actually a shitty remake to Unbreakable?

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
(And posh, cunning, intensely complex Austrian arseholes trying to blow up the world with a ridiculous amount of hidden explosives).

[/quote]

Is there any other kind?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
(And posh, cunning, intensely complex Austrian arseholes trying to blow up the world with a ridiculous amount of hidden explosives).

[/quote]

Is there any other kind?[/quote]

Touché Monsieur.

[quote]polo77j wrote:
after watching that review of e everything wrong with DH5 I’m wondering maybe instead of it being a shitty Die Hard installment, it was actually a shitty remake to Unbreakable?[/quote]

Ha ha…good idea! It sure seemed like it.

Indeed I blame CG effects for this…we have the ability to show humans doing things that stunt men simply couldn’t do…and since stuntmen are fucking real humans so then we started showing stuff no human could do.
It’s likely going to make this Superman movie coming in a couple of months not as spectacular; we’ve seen Angelina Jolie and other women jump through glass windows 30 stories up and land on a car’s roof and then walk away with only scars in the cool places so Superman can’t do much better.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:

Also, just in case someone comes along with the old “Dude, it’s an action movie! It’s supposed to be dumb with explosions!”…well we do need to be a little discerning, right? I mean you can’t just say with any action movie that someone thinks is bad in all ways (writing, dialog, acting, effects etc.) that it’s all OK because action movies are supposed to be big and dumb.
[/quote]

Yeah its actually that notion that is exactly why we have such an influx of terrible action movies these days. The idea that you can discard the principles of good movie making/story telling at the expense of just having more shit blow up is why we havent seen a good action movie since the 90s.[/quote]

I call it the Michael Bay-ing of movies. The success and influence of his cliche’ stuffed, mindless exercises in vanity is depressing.

The forth die hard was far too high tech & modernized for my liking…I’m assuming the fifth will be equally passable.

Perhaps, if it was retitled: Die ever so softly, through the communication of quite aggressive HTML codes, it’d have been a legit hit in it’s own right…though, still probably not.

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
The forth die hard was far too high tech & modernized for my liking…I’m assuming the fifth will be equally passable.

Perhaps, if it was retitled: Die ever so softly, through the communication of quite aggressive HTML codes, it’d have been a legit hit in it’s own right…though, still probably not. [/quote]

Ha Ha…good one. CGI has been beaten to death!

Weirdest thing about the new Die Hard is that Bruce Willis is still essentially playing McClane as himself but he was more convincing back in '88. Still playing himself.