[Alvar Hanso]

Originally Posted by darthbibble

IIRC the working title for Die Hard 3 was - Lethal Weapon 4!

I read that I think somewhere along with both the unproduced commando 2 and something else from Joel silver, Richochet I think originally being other movies entirely at script stage or in the case of commando 2 unproduced script becoming another film altogether

and edit, having just read the article now see, it die hard

[bgtension]

Just got back from watching it, and it was poor very poor. Wafer thin plot, strewn with holes, baddies that have no back story, and some quite ridiculous stunts.
And for some reason, they left in 4 f**ks in but cut the most important one from the franchise's catchphrase.
Unforgivable.

Oh and as far as rating it a 12A, no one in the audience was under 25! Well done Fox

[Theo_Bear]

From The Daily Telegraph review:

"Willis himself could not appear less enthusiastic in the role, and doesn’t phone in his performance here so much as clip it to a nearby pigeon and hope for the best."

[dbob]

I have yet to see anyone come on here and defend this film so it really must be THAT bad. I really hope it bombs at the box office. Hollywood needs to learn that we won't accept this sub standard c**p any longer!

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

From The Daily Telegraph review:

"Willis himself could not appear less enthusiastic in the role, and doesn’t phone in his performance here so much as clip it to a nearby pigeon and hope for the best."

Although Telegraph reviewer Robbie Collin actually likes the film and says "Yet even though the ride finally stalls, A Good Day To Die Hard has been thrustingly outrageous enough in its earlier moments to coast to the finish line on momentum." Three stars from the Telegraph.

The Guardian review is a lot more dismissive ("I don't think it knows where it's going. I'm not even sure it cares.") Two stars.

And for Time Out "The whole thing is a tedious, trashy throwback." Two stars.

Think I'll give it a miss.

[Trsvis_Bickle]

Originally Posted by dbob

I have yet to see anyone come on here and defend this film so it really must be THAT bad. I really hope it bombs at the box office. Hollywood needs to learn that we won't accept this sub standard c**p any longer!

It really doesn't surprise me. They've gone massively downhill since Die Hard (which is one of the best cop actioners ever made) but Hollywood just can't stop flogging a dead franchise.

[dbob]

Originally Posted by Trsvis_Bickle

It really doesn't surprise me. They've gone massively downhill since Die Hard (which is one of the best cop actioners ever made) but Hollywood just can't stop flogging a dead franchise.

true but i remember when Taken 2 suffered the same bad reviews and disappointment from fans but still people came on here defending it saying that it wasn't that bad. I guess Die Hard IS that bad!

[mike65]

Mark Kermodes review chimes in with the consensus - terrible, dull, lazy, boring, sleep inducing (the film that is!).

[grimtales1]

I've been put off seeing Taken 2 (speaking of that) as it seems the filmmakers butchered the excellent original Is the 15 rated DVD/BD the same as the Unrated version and any better?

[RedSnapper]

I saw Taken 2 today - thought it was of a similar quality to the first but with a bit more action - but was finished to quickly obviously setting it up for another sequal (or two).

I wont be rushing out to see this Die Hard

[Straker]

Originally Posted by Trsvis_Bickle

It really doesn't surprise me. They've gone massively downhill since Die Hard (which is one of the best cop actioners ever made) but Hollywood just can't stop flogging a dead franchise.

And yet each one has made more money than the last (not sure if this holds up when adjusted for inflation) so you can see why they keep making them. It might be artistically dead but financially? Far from it.

[dttuser]

glad pretty much everyone agrees with my post on this.. however, I think Hollywood are really missing a trick.. and that trick is make the film as an 18-rated film, then cut the theatrical version (if you want).. but give the people what they really want in the 18 version and release it either at a later date at the cinema, or, on DVD/Blu-ray a few months later..

If they do this, they'll make more money and make people who love the originals a lot happier.. it won't take that much effort to have two versions of a film released.. it's been done in the past.. I wish someone was close enough to FOX to give the people in charge a kick up the arse..

[darkjedimaster]

The tools at Fox have responded with a lame excuse & a plug to go and see the film . I for one will be boycotting this wrapped up in cotton wool crap & watch the uncut version as soon as I get the chance to.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/die-...ie-hard-5-cuts

[Johnny Clay]

Question: does re-inserting cuts/edits somehow magically turn a dud into something markedly better?

It's going to be rather embarrassing later on if they release an uncut version and it's still rubbish.

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by Johnny Clay

Question: does re-inserting cuts/edits somehow magically turn a dud into something markedly better?

Or to put it another way, would cutting the first Die Hard to get a lower classification have turned it from a great film to something markedly worse? I'd say no. It was a great film because it had a witty script, clever plot, good cast and it ticked so many boxes: action film, Christmas film, buddy film, evil villain, plot twist, etc etc... Taking out some violence and swearing would have made it less fun, sure, but it would have nonetheless been worth watching.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Johnny Clay

Question: does re-inserting cuts/edits somehow magically turn a dud into something markedly better?

It's going to be rather embarrassing later on if they release an uncut version and it's still rubbish.

The film itself is very poor, all the way from the script to the directing, so I've no doubt that even with the cut material reinserted the film will still be very poor.

It's been getting panned in the US too despite it being the uncut R rated version screening there, so the extra language and violence evidently doesn't improve the film too much.

[Johnny Clay]

@Inkblot & CJClarke:

That's my point. From what I gather the problems with DH 5 are fundamental. A few bullet wounds and profanities really make no odds.

Not that it matters, of course:

While domestic earnings are nice, A Good Day to Die Hard is really designed to tap in to the expanding foreign market (which has been Fox's bread-and-butter in recent years). The last movie did $250 million in 2007; with its overseas setting and six years of foreign growth, it's reasonable to expect that A Good Day to Die Hard will ultimately earn at least $300 million overseas.

Source: Boxofficemojo.

Given Bruce's advancing years, I imagine a DH 6 is already being outlined. Possibly on the back of a napkin.

[tasker]

What makes me laugh about this thread is the number of people who will not be seeing this film or taken2 because the critics don't like it.

Watch it for yourselves and make your own mind up.
If i didn't go to watch the films the critics told me not to i would have missed out on some of my all times favourites

How do you know you don't like a certain type of food? because someone has told you you won't or because you have tried it and you didn't like it?

Remember critics point of views are like a*******s everybody has got one and most of them talk s**t.

[Johnny Clay]

Originally Posted by tasker

What makes me laugh about this thread is the number of people who will not be seeing this film or taken2 because the critics don't like it.

Not sure if it's that clear cut. People often say they won't bother, but of course catch up with it eventually. And it's no loss if it turns better than expected.

What they don't want is to be ripped off on day one when all the warning signs were there, because then they'd only have themselves to blame. It's their prerogative, and you can't really blame them in today's climate.

[Theo_Bear]

Originally Posted by Johnny Clay

Given Bruce's advancing years, I imagine a DH 6 is already being outlined. Possibly on the back of a napkin.

Frankly, it doesn't matter how good the script and direction is for DH6 as long as Willis is only turning up for the money. Whatever he's done in the last 10 years has had a phoned in and desperately disinterested performance. He was no better in RED in a couple of years ago.

[KidMoe]

It's shit. Properly dreadful. Possibly even worse than Taken 2.

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by tasker

What makes me laugh about this thread is the number of people who will not be seeing this film or taken2 because the critics don't like it.

Watch it for yourselves and make your own mind up.

No. Absolutely not. I'll make my own mind up, that's for sure, but if the majority of critics give a reasoned argument why it's not worth paying good money to see, then I won't pay good money to see it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then I don't need to watch it for an hour and a half to work out whether it's a duck or not.

There are plenty of films which I would never have gone to see without critical recommendations, so it works both ways. I take the critics with a pinch of salt (particularly Bradshaw) but overall they make a positive contribution to the debate.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

Frankly, it doesn't matter how good the script and direction is for DH6 as long as Willis is only turning up for the money. Whatever he's done in the last 10 years has had a phoned in and desperately disinterested performance. He was no better in RED in a couple of years ago.

Bruce Willis can still be good, he was great in last years Looper, it's just a shame that the enthusiasm he showed in that role wasn't replicated here, although I suspect that he maybe realised that DH5 was a bad film going into it, he seemed strangely embarrassed during his interview in The One Show whenever the presenters said how much they "liked" the film.

[Nolan Deckard]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

Whatever he's done in the last 10 years has had a phoned in and desperately disinterested performance. He was no better in RED in a couple of years ago.

Though I generally agree with his typical action films, both Looper and Moonrise Kingdom showed that when he has either a passion for the project, or a director who knows how to get him enthusiastic about the film and role, then he can still be really good.

[Theo_Bear]

Forgot about Moonrise Kingdom, but couldn't get in to Looper at all. Got about halfway through, thought "meh", turned it off to go to bed, and never went back to the rest.

Willis is clearly embarrassed by A Good Day to Die Hard, which begs the question why he ever agreed to it. He must've read the script before committing.