chanster

More than half of the fun of Die Hard was watching the villians set up the trap and seeing how Bruce Willis would get out of it. The first Die Hard - I think McClain actually goes into action about 30-35 minutes into the movie, when he beat up Karl's brother. And then even after that, shit doesn't hit the fan for another 10 to 15 minutes. And a lot of time is spent with Hans and his crew, and that is what I think makes Die Hard the best, and the best action movie out there. Indeed, the whole LAPD sequence, McClain is just watching the action like us.

Die Hard 2 - essentially the same thing. Die Hard 3 I don't remember much, but I do know there was a lot of planning at the beginning by Hans' brother (forget his name)

I saw Die Hard 4 once so I don't know. There is no build up in this movie at all, and then the rest is just one action setup after another. The car chase was probably the best sequence and it was first. which is a problem.

Mad Dawg

I went in with low expectations and I'd say it almost lived up to them. What a bummer. I would love to see a do-over with a capable screenwriter and director.

For me, Die Hard movies are all about beating the shit out of McLane and having him keep coming. He is human and able to take an extreme beating, but you can tell that it is taking everything out of him to continue. In this one, he didn't even look like he was ever hurt. The whole thing felt rushed and lazy. I'm starting to think my 2 star rating was too generous.

Shannon Nutt

They definitely need someone to step in and save the franchise. This latest one just feels like a "cash grab" (particularly for the international market). I'm actually surprised Bruce signed on for it...unless he owed FOX another sequel, or agreed to do this to get something else.

Why So Blu?

As was previously mentioned Bruce don't give a fuck. Look at all those horrible DTV flicks he's been doing the last few years. He's in every 50 Cent flick, etc. He's stockpiling the cash.

Shannon Nutt

That can't be 100 percent true, or he'd never agree to do stuff like LOOPER and MOONRISE KINGDOM. He got peanuts to be in both those films.

Kal-El

Should've been called A Good Day to See Another Movie Instead. I can't believe I watched this and Beautiful Creatures and enjoyed that more instead.

JimRochester

Went to see it again today. My son wanted to see it. If he goes with buddies he has to pay himslef, if he takes a girl he has to pay twice. If he goes with me I pay for both. I enjoyed it enough to go see it again.

Why So Blu?

He's gotta mix it up a little.

mostaccioli

best scene in the movie is when willis falls off the helicopter and hits the window towards the end of the movie.

dex14

His work ethic baffles me. You would think he wouldnt settle on a shit script and director for the franchise that made his career. If he cares enough to work on high caliber projects like that, why not bring in some of these people into your franchise? Kind of like Cruise and M:I films. I don't understand why after Tears of the Sun Antoine Fuqua didn't get a shot at directing 4. I don't think that or Shooter are the greatest movies, but he directs action in a somewhat old school fashion that would've segwayed nicely into this new era of DH movies.

Troy Stiffler

Ehhh. That's not how it works. You don't sign onto a DTV production. They made the movie, and with the final product, couldn't get distribution. Some actors will include in their contract that theatrical distribution must occur (which can cause the production company to settle for less returns than they would have gotten with a DTV release).

Now you can get enough financing through the right channels to make a $20-$40M independent film. With more and more actors taking risks with new directors and small production companies, DTV is what happens when you're not dealing with sure-fire corporate product. You make the best movie you can, but it doesn't have that hook to get distribution.

People complain about DeNiro "taking any job". Really, he's getting behind movies and giving chances to productions that otherwise might never have a chance. He takes chances in order to find 'that one movie' that really works. If DeNiro woke up in the morning, and wanted to be part of a big event movie, he could.

hanshotfirst1138

I actually watched Terry Gilliam's Twelve Monkeys again last week, and I was reminded that at his best, with a proper director cracking the whip, Willis is capable of a lot more than his smirking badass shtick. His performance in that movie really is beautiful, powerful, and heartbreaking. The guy CAN act.

Why So Blu?

I think this is a unique contract with Willis in that I'm sure he signed off on some kind of package deal to star in these DTV films. Setup cost roughly 20 million to make and to quote:

"Set Up is the first film in a $200 million deal with the production companies Cheetah Vision and George Furla's Hedge Fund Film Partners. Grindstone Entertainment Group and Lionsgate will distribute the film in the United States and Canada."

I'm sure Willis got a nice chunk of that on the backend.

Fire with Fire cost 20 million to make and there's no way he was allocated his usual salary for any of those films.

There is also the films he's put out from Anchor Bay. The only films where I think he worked scale with no backend deals are Looper and Moonrise Kingdom.

chanster

Twelve monkeys was a long time ago...in the meantime, Bruce got to pay for the divorce, and all the investments he made up in Idaho. So this crap gets pushed out, and he is willing to show up, throw a few one liners and get the hell out of Dodge...yipee kay yeah mr. falcon!

jeffkjoe

There are exactly three - THREE - set pieces in this one:

1. Car chase
2. Penthouse shoot out and jump out the window
3. Chernobyl helicopter shoot out



And that's it.

Compare that to Die Hard 2.

The yippie Kai yay motherfukker line is a wasted letdown

And that main guy doesn't hold a candle to:

Hans.
Colonel Stuart.
Simon Gruber.

Maaaaaybe on par with Timothy Olymphant.

hanshotfirst1138

Colonel Stuart is kind of boring. He's probably the weakest Die Hard villain, certainly of the original trilogy. I like Sadler and he's reasonably sadistic, but he's nowhere near as fun as Rickman and Irons. Olyphant was a slightly better. Who is the villain in this one, it changes like two-thirds of the way in. Surprised at all of the hate going around for the fourth movie, I enjoyed it.

tylergfoster

Seems pretty clear that it was meant as a twist, that they thought they would subvert expectations by underplaying it. Doesn't work.

As for Bruce, I am pretty sure I already said this in this thread (but maybe it was elsewhere) that I mainly find it baffling that he was very protective on the last one and then didn't give a fuck on this one. I think he must have realized near the start that Moore was not the right choice, but by then it was too late.

I hope he chooses more wisely next time around. Above anything, I think the crucial element in a good Die Hard movie is going to be a director who is passionate about the series and can shoot action worth a damn.

Artman

Yeah, I was wondering about that as well. You'd think he would have a say in who the director is (not to mention script approval), since he is basically the only reason for the movie to be made in the first place. He's made some great choices in his smaller, non-action films... I guess he was just on autopilot for this one.

Pizza

I liked the flick. Too much action time wasted on his son. I just don't get why he's not higher up in his career after all the major terrorists/bad guys he's wasted.

jeffkjoe

Yeah, one would think John McClane would be a national hero by now......

Saved the Nakatomi hostages, then McClane was interviewed on Nightline and People Magazine.

Since then, he's been treated like a scumbag. I don't get why his kids don't respect the guy. The guy's a hero.

stingermck

He does get recognition from people in the films. Like oh shit it's McClane. At least he doesn't get shit on like Jack Bauer

I honestly think 30-40 mins was cut from this movie. Its the only thing IMO that makes sense.

Pizza

I laughed when he said he was a detective. He should be as famous as Superman at this point and that should be the source of friction from his kids, not that he wasn't an ideal dad...of course he's a good dad. He went to Russia to help his son so that shouldn't be the thing. But I could see the rub of being the children of a celebrity hero. John should be running the CIA at this point.
And I fail to even understand how his kid can blame him for what happens in the beginning of the flick. It's also hard to connect this "son" to the son from the last movie.
Despite all the issues with the poorly thought out plot, I still enjoyed it though. I hope they make another one just as long as they don't kill him off.

Meglos

You gotta do the safe picture. Then you can do the art picture. But then sometimes you gotta do the payback picture because your friend says you owe him.

dex14

jeffkjoe

If they do a Die Hard 6, they gotta stray away from the formula of having McClane having a falling out with:

His wife
His daughter
His son

Who's left for Part 6?

Rosita the maid from the original?