# A good day to die hard



## Engert (Feb 14, 2013)

This poor movie critic is crying because he's upset that Die Hard has changed over the years.
Awwww poor guy. I hope he's not ronery this Valentine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-kim/rethink-review-ema-good-d_b_2688135.html


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 14, 2013)

Given the last film involved jet surfing of a sort I was not expecting too much in the way of a return to Die Hard 1 through 3 in this film and was quite prepared to write it all off from the perspective of a die hard film. That said I am up for a cheesy action film and not a great deal has delivered since lockout (granted I have not been paying the most attention) so I may well even appear at the cinema.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

The last movie was rather shit. I was baffled but the laughably bad CG in the trailer for this one, and the use of CG to avoid the costs of actual fucking stunts and sets.

I can accept a shlocky action movie if it has some semblance of care in it, not one that's so obviously phoned in.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Feb 15, 2013)

I think a lot of people don't actually know what Die Hard is about. I mean honestly, can you really tell me that Die Hard 2 was any more believable than Die Hard 4? It's cheesy to the top, and that's what makes it awesome. The only bad thing from Die Hard 4 was the story, that was really dumb, and the villain wasn't that good. The other characters were alright, hell the best part in the movie was when John Mclean hits that bitch with a truck and drives right into the elevator shaft.

But still, they're all cheesy. That's what makes them great. Die Hard 4 is still pretty decent, probably better than Die Hard 3 which had a horrible cast, aside from Samuel L. I'm excited to see Die Hard 5, now if only I can find some funds to go...


----------



## Gahars (Feb 15, 2013)

Well, to be fair, didn't the whole appeal of Die Hard revolve around the fact that it wasn't a typical action film? The world wasn't in the balance; it was just contained to a building. The hero wasn't some super smooth commando; he was just a cop with shitty luck and a crumbling marriage. There isn't a whole army of baddies to be fought; it's just 12 dudes. It was more down to Earth, rather than over the top, and that was the entire point.

So yeah, I think it's fair to complain that the series has pretty much become exactly what it was reacting against. It would be like turning Austin Powers into a dark, gritty tale of espionage and deception; somewhere along the line, you've missed the point.

You can argue that it's just a dumb action movie and such, but it could be better than just that. Plus, if I'm in the mood for a dumb action movie, there's tons of other, more entertaining options out there - options that don't look embarrassingly phoned-in.


----------



## BORTZ (Feb 15, 2013)

Bruce Willis sure looks tired the entire movie. Like hes already done with the franchise.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Feb 15, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> Bruce Willis sure looks tired the entire movie. Like hes already done with the franchise.


 
He looks like that all the time now. The man is old and still pushes his body. Hell have you seen him in Looper? It looked like he was begging to be put out of his misery.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Feb 15, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> Bruce Willis sure looks tired the entire movie. Like hes already done with the franchise.


 



Well he is in his fifties, kicking ass everyday probally takes a toll on a person.


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

I see that some of you here are crying that movies evolve with time.
So, don't cry.


----------



## xist (Feb 15, 2013)

Engert said:


> This poor movie critic is crying because he's upset that Die Hard has changed over the years.
> Awwww poor guy. I hope he's not ronery this Valentine.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-kim/rethink-review-ema-good-d_b_2688135.html


 
That transcript is actually an excellent piece of writing about the problem...


----------



## xist (Feb 15, 2013)

Don't get emotional over it Engert, it's only a bad movie.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

I could understand the franchise evolving with time but it hasn't evolved well. And "evolution" isn't exactly giving up the trait that made your action movie solid and memorable. That feels like devolution.

I could even forgive it for giving up what made it unique if it at least tried. It just looks like a stale, soulless CG mess.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 15, 2013)

I am going to actually watch this one, but I am watching it like I did The Amazing Spider-Man, with my expectations extremely love. Die Hard 4 (I refuse to call it Live Free or Die Hard because that was a horrible title) was just meh.
Hopefully this one will be better than that one.


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

xist said:


> Don't get emotional over it Engert, it's only a bad movie.


 
I'm not getting emotional with the movie, but all the ones getting emotional are making my day. That's even better than the movie. The guy writing the article about that movie is obviously a Die Hard fanboy. I am also a Nintendo fanboy. The difference is that my world does not collapse when i see Nintendo titles such as Metroid Other M. I embrace them.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

Well you made this thread, everyone agrees with the critics, and you go "oh don't cry lol".

So you either made this thread in a feeble attempt to "troll" or your massively butthurt.


----------



## hkz8000 (Feb 15, 2013)

If only modern movies were as good as Apocalypse Now.


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well you made this thread, everyone agrees with the critics, and you go "oh don't cry lol".
> 
> So you either made this thread in a feeble attempt to "troll" or your massively butthurt.


 


Engert said:


> This poor movie critic is crying because he's upset that Die Hard has changed over the years.
> Awwww poor guy. I hope he's not ronery this Valentine.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-kim/rethink-review-ema-good-d_b_2688135.html


 
TLDR.
I'm making fun a critics.


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

hkz8000 said:


> If only modern movies were as good as Apocalypse Now.


 
Haaaaaaaaaaaaa !


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

Engert said:


> TLDR.
> I'm making fun a critics.


 
Not very well.


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Not very well.


 
Ah, so you must be the approver. Ok ok. Noted.


----------



## xist (Feb 15, 2013)

Engert said:


> I'm not getting emotional with the movie, but all the ones getting emotional are making my day. That's even better than the movie. The guy writing the article about that movie is obviously a Die Hard fanboy. I am also a Nintendo fanboy. The difference is that my world does not collapse when i see Nintendo titles such as Metroid Other M. I embrace them.


 
Are we reading the same article? The one i'm reading is explaining what made the original films good and how they've not moved so far from that point they've lost what made them stand out. If he was upset about it he'd be explaining why the movie is good, not why he agrees it was bad.


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

xist said:


> Are we reading the same article? The one i'm reading is explaining what made the original films good and how they've not moved so far from that point they've lost what made them stand out. If he was upset about it he'd be explaining why the movie is good, not why he agrees it was bad.


 
You see, i start the conversation backwards to get people going.
So, i disagree with him (the critic) and i joke about it. Because he is unable to accept the fact that movies evolve with time. What he's saying is absolutely correct. In a 80s world where Stallone and Chuck Norris kill without remorse, here comes John McLane a mortal superhero. Valid. But that was the 80 ( i make this point over and over again with movies and time) so now Die Hard has to evolve. I personally enjoyed all die hard movies. John McLane kicks ass now, kind of like Chuck Norris back then, but you know what? It's great. There's great dialogue, action, cgi. So you can't compare it with 1980 anymore. The first one is great and it will remain great, but you can't compare it to the movies made 20 years later. You know why? Because it's 2013. So things have changed. Jokes have changed, social issues have changed. Many other things have changed.
If you're unable to accept this fact you're a fanboy on any field. There's nostalgia and there's progress. The critic is a fanboy in this case.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 15, 2013)

Engert said:


> TLDR.
> I'm making fun a critics.


 
Don't you mean "Harvard Law School types"?


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Don't you mean "Harvard Law School types"?


 
See, Gahars understands now.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

To avoid the misconception that all critics are butthurt about the switch from John McClane as an everyman type to an action hero, Live Free or Die Hard has an 81% "Fresh" rating.

Critics are bombing this movie because* it is shit.* Not because they want to relive the glory days of the 80's, but because *it is a bad movie.*


----------



## xist (Feb 15, 2013)

Engert said:


> If you're unable to accept this fact you're a fanboy on any field. There's nostalgia and there's progress. The critic is a fanboy in this case.


 
But it's not a good movie in those terms. If it had evolved to offer something to the genre that'd be one thing, but you're seemingly upset that the Die Hard legacy can't turn a poor movie into a great one. Die Hard was always the preserve of John McClane's epicly bad day where he did unusual real-world (ish) stuff to save the day. This new movie reads just like every other action movie that's been made lately.

You can protest all you want, but it's you that's crying about people not liking a bad film based on it's Die Hard name. You need to accept that every brand can get tarnished with time and mismanagement.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

Also yet another Engert thread. Engert states his terrible opinion, gets buttflustered and makes accusations when no one agrees with him, then tries to go "lol u all got troled hard im master trole".


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

xist said:


> You need to accept that every brand can get tarnished with time and mismanagement.


 
I do accept it. No disagreement. But i like this movie. I think it has evolved great in 20 years.



Guild McCommunist said:


> Also yet another Engert thread. Engert states his terrible opinion, gets buttflustered and makes accusations when no one agrees with him, then tries to go "lol u all got troled hard im master trole".


 
Unlike you, i don't seek for approval or agreement.
I am my own island.

Server Timeout


----------



## Gahars (Feb 15, 2013)

Engert said:


> Unlike you, i don't seek for approval or agreement.
> I am my own island.


 
You Dunne goofed - no man is an island.

Also, Engert, keep your tears coming. It's a good day to cry hard.


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Also, Engert, keep your tears coming. It's a good day to cry hard.


 
I can't stop crying.
People making decisions for me whether i should like something or not.
I can't stop crying.

80% agree that something is bad so i should agree also.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

I beg you don't cry.


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I beg you don't cry.


 
I need a shoulder to cry upon.
Can someone give me a hug?


----------



## Engert (Feb 15, 2013)

No one hug me?
You insensitive bastards!

Ok kids, what did we learn today? We learned (again) that you should never _ever_ create a movie-opinion based on what someone tells you. Especially a crying diehard fanboy critic who is stuck in the eighties.
*You* may dislike this movie after watching it, and *I* may dislike this movie after watching it. But you dislike it on your own, not because some harward-law-school professor says so or the majority.
But, you may also _like_ this movie. In the end it's you that matters.
And _that_ ladies and gentlemen is the word of the day.

For any more questions please contact me at [email protected]


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 17, 2013)

I saw this shitfest so fuck this all I'm going to say why this movie is fucking terrible.


The directing. You can't tell what the fuck is going on 90% of the time. I can almost smell if a movie is going to be directed by a toddler if they start having the camera shake on static, boring shots. Like it feels as though, to keep production costs down, they decided against tripods and steady cam rigs. Action was so choppy and quick cut that it felt like a radio with poor reception. You only get snippets of information before it goes back to static. I know a lot of movies have this but at least some of those movies (such as the Bourne ones) have a decent story and pacing (more on these later).
The pacing and tone. The movie was so jarring. It'd abruptly cut into an action scene, then cut to a brief scene trying to make the McClanes have an "emotional reunion" then go back to action. It felt so forced, like they realized they needed to have characterization but just couldn't fucking write anything. The dialogue between them isn't even good. It's just John going "I love you" and Jack going "I love you too now that we've bonded". Every fucking scene they're being emotional. Let's not forget the story.
The story. Or should I say lack thereof. I won't go into the whole "Die Hard's small scale" thing, I'm judging this purely as a movie. It feels like nothing is at stake. They really just shoehorn in some reason to care. I wasn't huge on Live Free or Die Hard but at least it had stakes (his daughter, the entire United States). Plus it had a noticeable antagonist. Him and John were always throwing curveballs at each other. I wouldn't say it was a great dynamic but it was a dynamic. It was clear that he was the bad guy and you kinda understood all his motivations. Here, the bad guy just seems so... nonexistent. At first it's just the dancer guy (hell not even the McClanes could remember his name) but he's just a generic hired gun. Like he's literally just a suit. You'd think they'd put the light on the guy orchestrating this all, Viktor or whatever his name was. But he was only in a few scenes and it was mainly just to introduce plot points. So then (spoilers but who gives a shit) it moves to Yuri with his bullshit "IT WAS ME THE WHOLE TIME!" garbage. But this is like right in the last act. So you get an actual villain in the last act. So there's some fighting, he dies, everyone else dies, and then the movie's over. We never see what happens. They found all that uranium and nothing. Everyone just dies, it feels like there's no pay off for their actions.
The special effects. The general rules on special effects are as follows. Good special effects are ones you don't notice. Special effects shouldn't be used to replace real work and effort but to enhance scenes that need them or use them to do the impossible. Like in Titanic, having the ship go down like that wouldn't be so good looking without special effects (they also used a ton of miniatures and models). Or Iron Man, you can't have Iron Man flying around like that without the special effects. And in both movies you don't notice the special effects or they look good enough that they pass off as real. Here, they're just so terrible. It's so noticeable. Plus they shouldn't use it to replace basic stunts like jumping out a window or watching a helicopter go down. Go watch Skyfall and look at those set pieces and stunts. A helicopter crashes into a mansion and it blows up. And it looks all fucking real.
The action. Even as an action movie, this isn't good action. It's so samey. Literally the movie is about three set pieces. The first act is a car chase. The second act is a helicopter. The third act is... a helicopter again. They reuse so many stunts. Like they're constantly jumping out windows. Helicopters are constantly firing at them. Two of the three action scenes are the same. Besides the fact that they're so poorly cut that you have no idea what's happening, it's just the fucking same. Plus all the sets themselves are the same. Boring grey stereotypical Russian buildings. Live Free or Die Hard at least had him fighting in Washington DC, in some gas plant or something, riding a jet. It was silly but it was different and varied.
So no, this is not a bad Die Hard movie, it's just a bad movie.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 17, 2013)

Lol at people who expect exposition and passable cinematography from "Bruce Willis Action Vehicle 131".  The original Die Hard is probably my favorite movie ever.  I also believe Die Hard 4.0 is the second best of the series.  Poor CGI? Obliterates suspension of disbelief? The basic Die Hard "formula" has been the same since the beginning.  An ordinary man in an extraordinary (and completely unbelievable) situation...  Nothing has changed here.

And exhibit B:


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 17, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Lol at people who expect exposition and passable cinematography from "Bruce Willis Action Vehicle 131". The original Die Hard is probably my favorite movie ever. I also believe Die Hard 4.0 is the second best of the series. Poor CGI? Obliterates suspension of disbelief? The basic Die Hard "formula" has been the same since the beginning. An ordinary man in an extraordinary (and completely unbelievable) situation... Nothing has changed here.


 
I have no complaints with the infinite ammo and invincible heroes and typical action movie cliches. Every movie has them, I don't mind. It's not that that's bad. It's the fact that it's a fucking terrible movie. The other Die Hards may not be masterpieces but they're competent. This just isn't. Even when it comes to shlocky action movies (for the record I LOVED Sucker Punch), this is horrible.


----------



## narutofan777 (Feb 19, 2013)

i wish bruce willis would do another film similar to looper before he retires. I don't wanna hear no more orchestra type music playin' on a trailer where he's gonna kill people. that doesn't feel right. who plays that type music while killing people?

psychopaths?? makes the movie seem like a game.

OT:

and skyfall is pure garbage. first time I finished a james bond movie and now I don't ever want to again. lame storyline, lame scenes... 6/10 movie.

are directors gonna add garbage cyber hacking story lines to movies in the near future? I can't take em' seriously at all. bring the 90's and 00's back!!!!

these cyber hacking skilled ultra smart killers...makes me laugh.


----------



## Sefi (Feb 19, 2013)

A Good Day to Die Hard was a very average action movie.  Decent effects shots, lots of guns, and a plot that is surprising to nobody.  The whole thing with him and his son was like watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull again.  What's next, Chuck Norris teams up with his lost son in a Missing in Action remake?  

Skyfall was one of the worst Bond movies in my opinion, right up there with On Her Majesty's Secret Service (George Lazenby.... meh) and Tomorrow Never Dies (worst Bond villain EVER).  Don't get me wrong, I love Bond movies and even have the Blu-Ray collection.  Bond just wasn't enough...... Bond is the best I can describe Skyfall.


----------



## Black-Ice (Feb 19, 2013)

narutofan777 said:


> *i wish bruce willis would do another film similar to looper before he retires. I don't wanna hear no more orchestra type music playin' on a trailer where he's gonna kill people. that doesn't feel right. who plays that type music while killing people?*
> 
> psychopaths?? makes the movie seem like a game.
> 
> ...


I will never take you seriously.
Ever.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 19, 2013)

narutofan777 said:


> i wish bruce willis would do another film similar to looper before he retires. I don't wanna hear no more orchestra type music playin' on a trailer where he's gonna kill people. that doesn't feel right. who plays that type music while killing people?


 
A) It's ironic. Like, that's pretty much the point. 



> psychopaths?? makes the movie seem like a game.


 
wut



> OT:
> 
> and skyfall is pure garbage. first time I finished a james bond movie and now I don't ever want to again. lame storyline, lame scenes... 6/10 movie.
> 
> ...


 
Film criticism with narutofan, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 19, 2013)

narutofan777 said:


> are directors gonna add garbage cyber hacking story lines to movies in the near future? I can't take em' seriously at all. *bring the 90's and 00's back!!!!*
> 
> these cyber hacking skilled ultra smart killers...makes me laugh.



Others are have a great time but er herm


1995 for those not around/too lazy to roll up to imdb/see the youtube title.

Others reading if you can still find a copy of http://events.ccc.de/congress/2011/Fahrplan/events/4751.en.html (stream might be available- http://mirror.informatik.uni-mannhe...p/wmv/[4751] The Hack will not be televised?/ ) I highly recommend it.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 19, 2013)

If you think the storyline to Skyfall was cyberhacking then you are clearly a complete and utter idiot.

EDIT: I dunno how this turned into a Bond thread but while we're at it, there's few things I truly pride myself on. One of them is James Bond. I am obsessed with the movies. I own every single one of them. That being said, Skyfall was one of the best. It was original and inventive to not be a by-the-books Bond but well written enough to still be one at its core. It presented a great villain, one who wasn't comically evil like other Bond villains but who had real character. You got a more personal side of Bond and M, and the story wasn't about Bond saving the world, it was a small story of revenge. It was so different in that but still kept Bond's signature charm, brought back gadgets (not stupid ones, mind you), gave appropriate nods to the franchise, and was a Bond film in its whole. Hell, my only complaint with the movie is two mediocre greenscreen shots (one on the opening bike chase and one when he's hanging onto the elevator).

Skyfall and A Good Day to Die Hard, no comparison. Skyfall is a beautifully filmed movie with great writing, great performances, and great cinematography. It has motivations, set ups and payoffs, deep characters, all while still being an action movie. A Good Day to Die Hard is the lowest form of film. A cheap, poorly made cash-in on a popular franchise name. Terrible writing, no character, sloppy cinematography.

Even if you don't like Skyfall as a Bond movie, give credit where it's due. It's a beautiful film in terms of acting, direction, and cinematography. You may not like how it is written in terms of Bond but as a movie it is well written. It fits every category of what makes a good script.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Feb 19, 2013)

Oh Great 

Just what we need

Another thread with Engert bitching about shit films.


----------



## chavosaur (Feb 19, 2013)

I literally saw Skyfall for the first time Saturday, and Really liked it.
Especially all those little Hat tips to the old Bond Movies.
I was really depressed when I had to watch that Aston Martin be torn apart... Probably the only scene that made me wanna cry ;O;
As for the movie this topic is about... I'd rather discuss more James Bond.
Where is Hadrian and Why hasn't he turned this into a Bond Thread?


----------



## Engert (Feb 19, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Review


 
Guild,

thank you for that review. I am not joking. That's an honest review.
I can now skip this movie.

I actually saw Argo this weekend. It was a good movie. Not memorable, just good. Wouldn't see it a second time basically.


----------

