Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

A Good Day To Die Hard Rated 12A By BBFC Uncut


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13-02-2013, 22:35
Nolan Deckard
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 668
Well this film is taking a drilling from critics.

Started at 0, now upto a whopping 9% on RT. Seems like it is going to be terrible no matter what the rating.
Nolan Deckard is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 13-02-2013, 22:44
Bluray
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 647
I've been chasing reviews online and it really isn't looking good.
Several reviews stating that its a generic action script they squeezed into the Die Hard brand and it shows.
Oh dear.
Bluray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 23:10
Nolan Deckard
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 668
Several reviews stating that its a generic action script they squeezed into the Die Hard brand and it shows.
Which is ironic as this is the first screenplay actually written for Die Hard, rather than being adapted from elsewhere.

Just goes to show that Die Hard is more than a generic action screenplay, something this film failed to grasp from the start.
Nolan Deckard is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 23:40
alfster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,640
Die Hard is the daddy of the spider/fly film genre.

When I saw the 12A certificate on it today my heart sank and looking at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes sank even further.

I think it's going to damage the series. Obviously, studios are going for the money by making it more accessible to everyone.

I hope they have learnt from Taken 2 that ripping the soul out of a film just destroys it.

I'll not be watching this Die Hard film.
alfster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 23:45
Theo_Bear
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 961
Loving most of the reviews on RT *snigger*

Hopefully this will be the end of Woods and Moore's respective careers.
Theo_Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 23:46
alfster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,640
Which is ironic as this is the first screenplay actually written for Die Hard, rather than being adapted from elsewhere.

Just goes to show that Die Hard is more than a generic action screenplay, something this film failed to grasp from the start.
Yes, that's basically correct.

Die Hard 1 and 2 were based on novels - Die Hard 1 essentially being the same exact story as the book with a few minor tweaks and from there the other 3 were woven around McClane.

Die Hard 3 and 4 were based on previous scripts which were turned into Die Hard scripts.
alfster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 23:47
alfster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,640
Loving most of the reviews on RT *snigger* .
Yes, this one made me SNORK!

"To paraphrase a classic of Reagan-era cinema, "A Good Day to Die Hard" is a bad day to stop sniffing glue."
alfster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 23:50
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,063
I hope they have learnt from Taken 2 that ripping the soul out of a film just destroys it.
If they'd learnt from Taken 2, it wouldn't have been cut. The answer is that money talks and as long as the money comes in, which it will, they couldn't give a shit....
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 23:51
Theo_Bear
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 961
I've heard a rumour that due to poor word of mouth, Fox are already arranging special screenings at infant schools across the UK. Free milk and sugar free sweets available on entry.
Theo_Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 23:55
alfster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,640
If they'd learnt from Taken 2, it wouldn't have been cut. The answer is that money talks and as long as the money comes in, which it will, they couldn't give a shit....
Taken 2 made less than Taken 1.
alfster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 00:03
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,063
Taken 2 made less than Taken 1.
Not entirely reliable, but Wikipedia begs to differ...$226,830,568 for the first $374,187,209 for the second
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 10:34
Dai13371
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ammanford, South Wales
Posts: 7,900
What is your opinion on Die Hard 4.0 ?
Watched it twice, still cant remember it.

Stll, after McTiernan's two and Harlin's , we had Luc Besson's Die Hard on a space liner to enjoy.....complete with vest and hair.
Dai13371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 11:05
darthbibble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,133
Yes, that's basically correct.

Die Hard 1 and 2 were based on novels - Die Hard 1 essentially being the same exact story as the book with a few minor tweaks and from there the other 3 were woven around McClane.

Die Hard 3 and 4 were based on previous scripts which were turned into Die Hard scripts.
IIRC the working title for Die Hard 3 was - Lethal Weapon 4!
darthbibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 11:15
dbob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 320
Please people vote with your feet and don't pay money to see this s***, otherwise the studios will just keep churning out this generic 12A action rubbish.
dbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 11:19
mike65
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Waterford Ireland
Posts: 6,942
John Moore is a total hack, the Ted Post of the 21st century

another RT review
There is no denying that this is one Hollywood property that has run out of steam. It's not so much a good day to die hard, as it is a good day to retire this franchise
mike65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 12:46
alfster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,640
Not entirely reliable, but Wikipedia begs to differ...$226,830,568 for the first $374,187,209 for the second
On Rotten Tomatoes, in the US, 1 made more than 2..maybe people in the US have more taste than we thought!
alfster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 13:13
logansdad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 765
Why did they make this a 12 cert? How many 12 year olds were pacing up and down wondering when the next installment of a 25 year old franchise was coming out?

Actually, just, why did they make this?
logansdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 13:32
grimtales1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Albans, UK, Team Wagner
Posts: 38,769
IIRC the working title for Die Hard 3 was - Lethal Weapon 4!
Seriously? I never knew that Interesting....
grimtales1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 15:15
darthbibble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,133
Seriously? I never knew that Interesting....
Yep it was on Den Of Geek a while ago.

It's the reason why McClane has a black sidekick in DH3.


The only doubt I have is whether the script was originally developed for LW4, but it's a fact it was at point at least, headed to messers Gibson and Glover.
darthbibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 15:52
Darksider
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Northants
Posts: 235
Yep it was on Den Of Geek a while ago.

It's the reason why McClane has a black sidekick in DH3.


The only doubt I have is whether the script was originally developed for LW4, but it's a fact it was at point at least, headed to messers Gibson and Glover.
I think it was also, originally intended to be a sequel for Rapid Fire as well.
Darksider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 16:09
darthbibble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,133
I think it was also, originally intended to be a sequel for Rapid Fire as well.
yeah it looks like it was.

I've found the Den Of Geek article.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/die-...ie-hard-movies
darthbibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 17:04
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
Just got back from watching it and i thought it was terrible, so bad that Die Hard 4.0 looks like a masterpiece by comparison, at least 4.0 still had a shred of the original Die Hard "feel" despite the toned down language/violence, this has none of that, it's basically a generic action film starring an uninterested looking Bruce Willis who appears to have developed superpowers that stop him from getting hurt (keep an eye out for the hilarious way he just walks away without a scratch after flipping a truck around 5 times, long gone are the days where he limped around Nakatomi Plaza with glass in his feet...). The story was nonsensical and uninteresting thanks to bad guys who make the villain in Die Hard 4.0 look fleshed out, the family storyline felt oddly forced due to Jai Courtney seemingly having zero chemistry with Bruce Willis, the action scenes were woefully directed (there's no sense of place, you see people shooting, but you never see where or what they seem to be shooting at, possibly due to the cuts to get a 12A restricting scenes of bullet impacts), the majority of the attempts at humour fall flat on their face and feel forced, and the dialogue! Oh! Don't get me started on how cringeworthy the dialogue is!

The cutting out of the F word from his catchphrase also seems really stupidly edited, at least in 4.0 there was a loud gunshot to obscure the word, here it just cuts away before he finishes saying it...

As a massive fan of the original trilogy this was absolutely horrible to watch. I doubt that even the uncut version could improve this. Avoid.

PS: Even in this butchered UK version, i still think it was too strong for a 12A. The F word should be used once or maybe twice in a 12A in my opinion, anything over that should be a 15.
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 19:17
darkjedimaster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Deathstar
Posts: 12,913
Please people vote with your feet and don't pay money to see this s***, otherwise the studios will just keep churning out this generic 12A action rubbish.
I won't be paying to see the butchered version that is for sure. Yippee Ki Yay 20th century f***s.

Piracy isn't killing Hollywood........Hollywood is killing Hollywood.
darkjedimaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 19:22
Nolan Deckard
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 668
I was excited to see this tonight, but once the 12A rating was announced I opted out, really glad I did looking at these reviews.

I REALLY want it to bomb, but it just wont. I know a load of people who are still really excited for it, even though is isn't even really a Die Hard film.
Nolan Deckard is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-02-2013, 20:17
Ancient IDTV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,090
I didn't like the last DH much, and I certainly won't be going to see this one. They need another Gruber villain.
Ancient IDTV is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:32.