A Good Day to Die Hard

[grout]

The critics do not only like Oscar films. The Dark Knight Rises, Looper and The Hunger Games weren't nominated for Oscars and got overwhelmingly decent or good reviews last year. Something like Fast Five even got passable reviews overall.

I'm sorry but that line is a croc of **** and I'm sick of butt hurt fanboys using it just because critics didn't enjoy a movie you did.

Wow, okay.. yeah that was just my opinion.. My point is I dont care about critics opinions.. How the hell would that make me a butt hurt fanboy? I dont read reviews, how would some critics opinion bother me that I have not given the time to even hear? Geese chill out

 

[TX85]

So even the action is bad or what??

 

[Liam_H]

Yes. Many are saying its poorly shot and edited. Even the car chase that took like 80 days to shoot wasn't that great.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Wow, okay.. yeah that was just my opinion.. My point is I dont care about critics opinions.. How the hell would that make me a butt hurt fanboy? I dont read reviews, how would some critics opinion bother me that I have not given the time to even hear? Geese chill out

If your point was that you don't care about what critics say and you don't know what critics are saying then why did you claim to know that they only like oscar films?

It seems to me that you didn't like the fact that a film that you want to see is getting bad reviews so you just tossed something out some so called fact that a simple google search would show isn't true. I did that like five years ago regarding Hellboy's reviews and learned my lesson.

A google search a day keeps the internet correctors away.

 

[-JKR-]

If your point was that you don't care about what critics say and you don't know what critics are saying then why did you claim to know that they only like oscar films?

It seems to me that you didn't like the fact that a film that you want to see is getting bad reviews so you just tossed something out some so called fact that a simple google search would show isn't true. I did that like five years ago regarding Hellboy's reviews and learned my lesson.

A google search a day keeps the internet correctors away.

Hellboy was bad?!

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The critics do not only like Oscar films. The Dark Knight Rises, Looper and The Hunger Games weren't nominated for Oscars and got overwhelmingly decent or good reviews last year. Something like Fast Five even got passable reviews overall.

I'm sorry but that line is a croc of **** and I'm sick of butt hurt fanboys using it just because critics didn't enjoy a movie you did.

The last Die Hard movie got 81% at Rotten Tomatoes. Critics have no problem liking popcorn films as long as it is good popcorn.

 

[-JKR-]

The last Die Hard movie got 81% at Rotten Tomatoes. Critics have no problem liking popcorn films as long as it is good popcorn.

That'll ever be a mistery to me.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It seems to me that you didn't like the fact that a film that you want to see is getting bad reviews so you just tossed something out some so called fact that a simple google search would show isn't true. I did that like five years ago regarding Hellboy's reviews and learned my lesson.

Both Hellboy movies got good reviews.

EDIT: Just checked Rotten Tomatoes. It was 80% for Hellboy and 86% for Hellboy II.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Hellboy was bad?!

Not to me but I thought the critics didn't like it and was corrected by another poster that the film did in fact get good reviews.

I know both Hellboy movies got good reviews. See now I know I wasn't clear enough about the situation in my post.

See in 2008 I was looking forward to Hellboy 2 and said something about critics not liking movies like Hellboy and that I bet they wouldn't like Hellboy 2 then a poster corrected me and said that Hellboy did get good reviews. I checked and realized that I didn't know what I was talking about. And I read HB2's reviews and was excited because they were so good and funny enough ended up disliking the film.

 

[Schlosser85]

The fourth Die Hard was crap, so I'm not really interested in this one.

 

[TX85]

That'll ever be a mistery to me.

Difference in opinions than yours is no mystery

 

[The Chris]

Yes. Many are saying its poorly shot and edited. Even the car chase that took like 80 days to shoot wasn't that great.

And that was a shame because the stunt coordinators did a good job on the scene. The director failed them. Thats something you cant say of the other directors, even Wiseman.

 

[-JKR-]

Difference in opinions than yours is no mystery

Never said it was, but to me it seems much for a typical post-2000s action movie so generic. I guess they were won over by how PC it was.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I didn't find it generic. I thought the plot was fairly clever and really the only thing that bothered me was the fighter jet scene. The rest was good fun.

 

[Brain Damage]

Die Hard 4 was ironically enough the first Die Hard film I ever saw. And I liked it a lot.

But then I saw the original and finally managed to understand what all the talk was about.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The fourth Die Hard was crap, so I'm not really interested in this one.

This.

 

[-JKR-]

I didn't find it generic. I thought the plot was fairly clever and really the only thing that bothered me was the fighter jet scene. The rest was good fun.

The plot could have made for a pretty nice movie. McClane, cyber-terrorists... COULD have worked. But it was poorly executed.

 

[DyeLorean]

(Note that I'm writing this without having watched A Good Day...)

I think there's one fundamental flaw that some directors just don't know how to properly adapt in this franchise. And that is how the character acts and reacts to what's going on. What made the first movie so special is the situation in which the character was put into, it was a very unique type of story.

They tried to do almost the same thing with a different environment in Die Harder, but something didn't click. Then the same director does what it should've been done in the first place, in Die Hard With a Vengeance, raising the stakes, to open the game but without losing the one special element that worked with the original movie: the character and the situation. The movie got bigger, but it stayed true to the concept.

Live Free or Die Hard tried to raise the stakes once again, involving an even bigger scope. I think that movie is an entertaining action movie, but doesn't feel like Die Hard. Is just a bald Bruce Willis in a random (good) action movie.

I haven't seen A Good Day to Die Hard, but apparently the ongoing mistake of "getting bigger" (this time, leaving the country) is doing a lot of damage to the franchise.

I think they should re-think what made the best two movies work (personally, 1st and 3rd) and try to apply that logic to a new Die Hard movie. Back to basics. I think the James Bond franchise is a good example, in the sense that it got so off the rails with Die Another Day that they had to start from scratch with Casino Royale.
I know Die Hard is not that big of a franchise, but we have 5 movies already, and they plan to make a 6th one. Is still much longer than most franchises. So, I hope they realize what they're doing wrong to make a good, final, closing Die Hard movie.

 

[-JKR-]

I haven't seen A Good Day to Die Hard, but apparently the ongoing mistake of "getting bigger" (this time, leaving the country) is doing a lot of damage to the franchise.

It don't really think it's the getting bigger that's the problem. It's the getting bigger and losing sight of other aspects that made the first one a classic and the third one a great sequel and action flick.

 

[DyeLorean]

It don't really think it's the getting bigger that's the problem. It's the getting bigger and losing sight of other aspects that made the first one a classic and the third one a great sequel and action flick.

Well, of course, I didn't watch it, so I'm just theorizing. I believed that the natural step of the sequel was to take him out of the country, doing something fresh. I once thought trapping him in a foreign country, without local assistance, was a good idea. But apparently they didn't go on that route, and just settled with a lazy random action movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I haven't seen the film, but based on the reviews it seems to come down to a simple issue. Hire a terrible director, get a terrible film.

 

[-JKR-]

Well, of course, I didn't watch it, so I'm just theorizing. I believed that the natural step of the sequel was to take him out of the country, doing something fresh. I once thought trapping him in a foreign country, without local assistance, was a good idea. But apparently they didn't go on that route, and just settled with a lazy random action movie.

I haven't seen it either. And in fact the idea of having him in a foreign country isnt't bad. Sending him there to save his son isn't bad either. So it's a pity to see those good ideas were appearantly wasted.

I haven't seen the film, but based on the reviews it seems to come down to a simple issue. Hire a terrible director, get a terrible film.

Skip Woods writing the script wasn't a good start to begin with.

I would love to know what Doug Richardson's take on Die Hard 4 would've been, which Willis loved, but Tom Rothman didn't (favoring for something marketable to modern blockbuster audiences). And to all the people wondering why "new Fox" would do something like this, keep in mind this was one of the last few project Rothman WAS involved with. And it doesn't help that Alex Young, one of Fox's worst executives from the Rothman era, is producing.

 

[Marv]

Just got out. Three things:

1. How does John Moore keep getting work?

2. Why would anyone finance this instead of spending the money on something that's actually good?

3. Is the online community the only community that understands you need John McTiernan in order for a Die Hard movie to work?

Sadly #3 is a rhetorical question. Willis himself has said he liked 4 & 5 more than 3.

In summary, huge disappointment with some of the worst dialogue in ages. A waist of nine dollars.

Someone needs to ask Willis question #3 until its drilled in his head and then the studio needs to get McTiernan out of jail through some sort of work-release program so we can finally get a third Die Hard movie deserving of the title Die Hard. 2, 4 & 5 don't exist in my eyes.

 

[-JKR-]

Even if John McTiernan gets out of jail, he's burned his bridges in Hollywood. Hasn't had a hit in years, and people won't hire a guy who wiretaps producers. Most won't even hire competent and confident directors who are willing to fight for their vision, go figure...

 

[DyeLorean]

Sadly #3 is a rhetorical question. Willis himself has said he liked 4 & 5 more than 3.

Did he actually say that? Most of the times they just say that through press releases and stuff just to make people go watch it.