Die Hard 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Both Moore and Skip Woods are kinda weird - they continue to get gigs and continue to be these unidentifiable blobs.
 
Renny Harlin's never been the strongest director either - he's consistently inconsistent, though, not all out bad.
 
Perfect way to describe Harlin. But he was clearly the wrong man for the job, imo. Weel, also imo, anyone not named John McTiernan is wrong for DH.
 
Both Moore and Skip Woods are kinda weird - they continue to get gigs and continue to be these unidentifiable blobs.

Yeah, but there are always people like that, so I don't care. I only do when they get gigs like DH.
 
Max Payne wasn't that bad other than it wasn't Max Payne. :oldrazz:
 

ibqbndTJk9t9dE.jpg
 
How big is that son's head? Seriouusly, it's distracting.
 
Good, another reason not to watch that series.
 
Max Payne wasn't that bad other than it wasn't Max Payne. :oldrazz:

Don't make me go full Nic Cage, Kane.:jedi

Immediately upon hearing John Moore's involvement my guard has been up, regardless of how much I want to see McClane doing what he does best.
 
I just want to know how many "die" cliches they're going to use in the titles if this series keeps going. How about...

Skate or Die Hard
Die Trying Hard
To Live and Die Hard in L.A.
Funny or Die Hard
Not Afraid to Die Hard
Live and Let Die Hard
Never Die Hard Alone
 
Last edited:
This doesnt look too bad. The fourth one wasnt as awful as many say it is either
 
I think Die Harder was worse than Live Free or Die Hard, the latter didn't feel like Die Hard. It lost the rawness of the first and third film.
 
Yeah, Die Harder is silly because the exact same thing happens to him, and his wife, AND even the reporter from the first movie, and it's even on Christmas. It's just too much coincidence to be taken seriously. Which is a shame because I actually think the other aspects of it make for a great action movie.
 
Yeah, Die Harder is silly because the exact same thing happens to him, and his wife, AND even the reporter from the first movie, and it's even on Christmas. It's just too much coincidence to be taken seriously. Which is a shame because I actually think the other aspects of it make for a great action movie.
true.

But I still think it's a great action film and has the spirit of the first film. Also watching it now post-9/11 with the airport/terrorist plot it's a film that probably can never be made now.
 
What I like the most about the first two Die Hard movies is the settings. That it takes place in a very specific place, with very specific characteristics.

While I think Die Hard With a Vengeance is a lot of fun (probably my second favorite) and Live Free or Die Hard is a good action movie, they had little to do with what made the first one special in the first place.

A Good Day To Die Hard could become a great mixture if it traps McClane in some impossible situation like the first one. Is too much to ask, but I want the series to come back to its roots a little bit.
 
When it comes to a long running series it's always circular isn't it? The first few works on a successful formula but then gets stale. Then you have the film that is progressive and brings new life to the series. Then sometimes this new direction is too different and eventually the series then returns to its roots (while keeping it fresh). This circle has happened with Bond, Star Trek and even Riddick. The Fast/Furious series is still at new direction point. Who knows, it may stay at this new ' global action'
or might go back to 'street racing' if Fast 6 sucks.
I can see Die Hard 6 going back to basics, keeping it small and in a confined setting.
 
Last edited:
I just hope they keep McClane as the accidental kind of character. He doesn't intentionally go out looking for this kind of trouble. That's why he's not your typical action hero.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"