403 replies to this topic

[Tarl_Cabot]

Nice write up Loomis. I noticed no complaints about the PG-13 issue...did you not mind the watered down diehardness?

The way you describe Maclane makes me wonder if they're borrowing from Jack Bauer.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

BTW, which DIE HARDs are referenced in LIVE FREE....? I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest that just the events of the first one are mentioned. Or is McClane referred to as "the guy who was involved in that Nakatomi Plaza takeover in the '80s, the Dulles Airport hijacking a couple of years later, and also the attempt in the mid-90s by the brother of the Nakatomi terrorist leader to seize control of New York City, rather like this computer genius is currently trying to commandeer the whole country"? Thought not.

I was surprised that

Spoiler

not even the events of the first film are referred to explicitly. There's a scene in which Olyphant's bad guy taunts McClane with embarrassing details about his life and finances, gathered via his computer knowhow; you'd have thought that he'd have made mocking mention of the Nakatomi affair, at least - something along the lines of: "I guess you think you're still hot **** because you managed to shoot a few goons in that tower; I guess the last twenty years of your life have been all about thinking you're some kind of hero." Stuff like that.

Not only is DIE HARD 4.0 free of "How can the same **** happen to the same guy four times?" self-regarding quippery, but the McClane of this movie has no heroic background or minor celebrity status at all, which is something I wasn't expecting. Rather than figure out a way to address the inherent preposterousness of DIE HARD as franchise fare (i.e. the way McClane keeps getting mixed up in major terrorist incidents by pure chance), the filmmakers seem to have decided to airbrush away McClane's action-packed past. Here, he's just a burned-out, brutal cop, a man of misogynistic and racist comments, someone you can easily imagine has beaten confessions out of people on many occasions, someone who's just had a lifetime of crappy, dirty and thankless assignments, someone not all that different to the character Willis plays in 16 BLOCKS, only nastier, scuzzier and more aggressive. It's an interesting potential new approach to McClane - a gritty, realistic, back-to-Fleming, Craigifying/Daltonising of the character, if you will. The trouble is that the film is so relentlessly outlandish and boring, with all the other characters so uninteresting, that McClane 2.0 just kind of lies there uselessly.

Actually, there was one that I spotted that references the first; even when I first heard about the possibility of a fourth film, I figured they would throw this in to keep the Die Hard die hards happy:

Spoiler

Agent: "Mr. McClane, I'm Agent Johnson."
McClane [looks quizzically]: "Agent Johnson...?"

I do agree with you on almost all of your points, though, except for one: I thought Willis did a commendable job, given what he had to work with, and for me, he was about the only thing that kept me watching. Even with the PG-13, I was surprised at how brash and McClane-like he managed to be; I'm sure the feminist groups are throwing a hissy fit over the Maggie Q fight at this point (understandably so, too).

Still, I'm a little saddened that you didn't enjoy it very much, Loomy, but on the other hand, between you, Harmsway, Blonde Bond, and myself, I'm sort of glad that I'm not the only one who thought it was a disappointment.

[Loomis]

Nice write up Loomis. I noticed no complaints about the PG-13 issue...did you not mind the watered down diehardness?

Well, I don't think the movie needed to be any more violent. I think it goes to show not how watered-down (in terms of carnage) this DIE HARD is, but how much filmmakers can now get away with under the ratings system. I'm sure that, just a few years ago, this exact same cut of DIE HARD 4.0 would have been an 18, our equivalent of an R. Also, in Britain, both DIE HARD 2 and DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE played in cinemas in censored versions with the same 15 - PG-13 - certificate DIE HARD 4.0 has, so I'm used to this kind of thing. (The uncut version of DIE HARD 2 is available on DVD in Britain as an 18, but the full-length DHWAV has never been released here. The original DIE HARD - still the most explicitly bloody of the bunch - has never been anything other than an 18.)

Like many other people, though, I did notice that the characters' lip movements often didn't match the dialogue, suggesting that swearing was taken off the soundtrack.

[Robinson]

Still, I'm a little saddened that you didn't enjoy it very much, Loomy, but on the other hand, between you, Harmsway, Blonde Bond, and myself, I'm sort of glad that I'm not the only one who thought it was a disappointment.

LFODH was an entertaining action film, a decent DIE HARD film but it's an aching reminder of just how superior & genre defining the first film was. Willis is good in the film & I've no problem w/his age or reprising the role again. Ultimately, I've forgotten about this flick(one week later), save the climax and some of the humor. At least the references to the first two films are subtle ones.

LFODH left me with the same feelings after seeing other summer sequels:

That was okay. They don't need to make another one anytime soon.

[Loomis]

Sure, Willis is good, insofar as it's not a blatantly lazy and in-it-purely-for-the-money turn like Arnie's in T3.... but the film is so overblown and ridiculous (without much of a compensating attitude of campy fun), yet at the same time so utterly dull, that the only reason to watch it is to scrape up the last few morcels of star quality and entertainment value from Willis' John McClane. Which isn't really enough.

Now, maybe I'm being too harsh. Having not seen Today's Action Movies™, e.g. THE TRANSPORTER, CRANK, or whatever it is that the youth of 2007 is glued to in the same way as the 30-something yours truly was (is) entertained by DIE HARD, LETHAL WEAPON, RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II, and so on.... having not seen the contemporary competition of DIE HARD 4.0, it may well be that it is indeed still better than what passes for Hollywood action franchise fare nowadays. I don't know.

But what I do know is that DIE HARD 4.0 doesn't come close to matching up to CASINO ROYALE or ROCKY BALBOA in the quality stakes, and given the DIE HARD series' pedigree and the money that was evidently lavished on this movie (not just during its production, but throughout its long, long years of development hell), there was absolutely no reason why it couldn't have been an awful lot better. It may not be as bad a sequel as, say, SPEED 2, or even T3, but that doesn't mean it's good.

They don't need to make another one anytime soon? Well, Willis has reportedly said that he's up for a fifth, but only if Wiseman returns, and only if Long also comes back - 'coz, get this, you can't have a DIE HARD movie without Justin Long. The Brucemeister's words, not mine. And he's even said that Maggie Q would also have to return in order to tempt him back, which is ludicrousness on a par with his statement that LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is even better than the original. I mean, has he even seen the DIE HARDs in their finished form, or just acted in them before moving on to other projects? I know I'm sounding like a whingeing old school fanboy, like Kevin Smith's Warlock tearing into THE PHANTOM MENACE (which would have made an amusing scene, but I guess Fox declined to film it, for obvious reasons), but it reminds me of an amusing comment I read in an Amazon review of Thomas Harris' HANNIBAL RISING, which went something along the lines of: "This book is so badly-written and so divorced from the universe of the other novels that it makes you wonder whether Harris even read the other Hannibal adventures, never mind wrote them."

So, no, I'd definitely say they shouldn't bother making another DIE HARD along the lines of the monstrosity Willis seems to have in mind. But I think this series deserves and needs its ROCKY BALBOA, or even its LETHAL WEAPON 4, which to my mind (I know that many would disagree) wrapped things up in a way that didn't disgrace the earlier entries and established character relationships and closures that were actually quite moving (in stark contrast to the numbingly empty LETHAL WEAPON 3). Give it another five years or so, and come up with a scaled-back adventure with believable but gripping and well-staged action (a la the 1988 original), and I'd welcome a final outing that gives McClane a proper sendoff. This ain't it.

[Robinson]

Give it another five years or so, and come up with a scaled-back adventure with believable but gripping and well-staged action (a la the 1988 original), and I'd welcome a final outing that gives McClane a proper sendoff. This ain't it.

At that point, I'll cruise these boards and wait for your review before I check out future DH sequel. The same for STAR TREK XI, ALIENS vs. PREDATOR (yep, that's the title)and PIRATES. I'm even holding off on the inevitable TRANSFORMERS sequel. Why? I jsut can't see many of these moviemakers getting in right or getting it better.

I remember last year or year before last when folks on the boards we're anticipating all the summer films. I looked at the slate and saw that we were waiting for more sequels. To me, that didn't bode well. IMO, what we've seen this summer has been lackluster.

Unfortunately Loomis, we can't go home again. DIE HARD was special and genre defining. All this flick does is remind us how fresh the original was. I think this should be it and a prayer should be said that no one tries to remake the original.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Sure, Willis is good, insofar as it's not a blatantly lazy and in-it-purely-for-the-money turn like Arnie's in T3.... but the film is so overblown and ridiculous (without much of a compensating attitude of campy fun), yet at the same time so utterly dull, that the only reason to watch it is to scrape up the last few morcels of star quality and entertainment value from Willis' John McClane. Which isn't really enough.

Now, maybe I'm being too harsh. Having not seen Today's Action Movies™, e.g. THE TRANSPORTER, CLICK, or whatever it is that the youth of 2007 is glued to in the same way as the 30-something yours truly was (is) entertained by DIE HARD, LETHAL WEAPON, RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II, and so on.... having not seen the contemporary competition of DIE HARD 4.0, it may well be that it is indeed still better than what passes for Hollywood action franchise fare nowadays. I don't know.

But what I do know is that DIE HARD 4.0 doesn't come close to matching up to CASINO ROYALE or ROCKY BALBOA in the quality stakes, and given the DIE HARD series' pedigree and the money that was evidently lavished on this movie (not just during its production, but throughout its long, long years of development hell), there was absolutely no reason why it couldn't have been an awful lot better. It may not be as bad a sequel as, say, SPEED 2, or even T3, but that doesn't mean it's good.

They don't need to make another one anytime soon? Well, Willis has reportedly said that he's up for a fifth, but only if Wiseman returns, and only if Long also comes back - 'coz, get this, you can't have a DIE HARD movie without Justin Long. The Brucemeister's words, not mine. And he's even said that Maggie Q would also have to return in order to tempt him back, which is ludicrousness on a par with his statement that LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is even better than the original. I mean, has he even seen the DIE HARDs in their finished form, or just acted in them before moving on to other projects? I know I'm sounding like a whingeing old school fanboy, like Kevin Smith's Warlock tearing into THE PHANTOM MENACE (which would have made an amusing scene, but I guess Fox declined to film it, for obvious reasons), but it reminds me of an amusing comment I read in an Amazon review of Thomas Harris' HANNIBAL RISING, which went something along the lines of: "This book is so badly-written and so divorced from the universe of the other novels that it makes you wonder whether Harris even read the other Hannibal adventures, never mind wrote them."

So, no, I'd definitely say they shouldn't bother making another DIE HARD along the lines of the monstrosity Willis seems to have in mind. But I think this series deserves and needs its ROCKY BALBOA, or even its LETHAL WEAPON 4, which to my mind (I know that many would disagree) wrapped things up in a way that didn't disgrace the earlier entries and established character relationships and closures that were actually quite moving (in stark contrast to the numbingly empty LETHAL WEAPON 3). Give it another five years or so, and come up with a scaled-back adventure with believable but gripping and well-staged action (a la the 1988 original), and I'd welcome a final outing that gives McClane a proper sendoff. This ain't it.

Dude, The Transporter was a fun B action movie. You should check it out. It's got a cool but admitedly cliche (ex-special forces baddass) hero who's retired/jaded and in business for numero uno but living a really bitchin almost Bondian lifestyle on the french riviera...you'll dig it for what it is,a Diet James Bond flick.But the sequel sucks...France gets exchanged for all too familiar Miami..it's a bummer they ruined something so cool so soon. But the Transporter is an entertaining flick.

[Safari Suit]

Saw it last night. Was much better than all the harbingers indicated but not quite as good as the reviews suggested. It's not particularly memorable but there were a few good set pieces and some nice moments. I came out of the cinema pretty happy. For me it was no "Rocky Balboa", but it wasn't another "Alien Vs Predator" either.

However I have to say it's current IMBD rating is farcical. I have long considered their ratings somewhat dubious, but now that both Die Hard 4 AND Transformers (I'm being presumptious there, but I think somewhat justifiably) are on the Top 250 I don't even know what to think about them anymore.

[Loomis]

Unfortunately Loomis, we can't go home again. DIE HARD was special and genre defining. All this flick does is remind us how fresh the original was.

True, but then again it's possible to make excellent sequels to genre-defining films. We can't go back to the golden age of 1960s Bondmania again, except CASINO ROYALE managed the extraordinary and rivalled the first three Connerys and OHMSS in terms of quality; while Stallone's sixth (sixth!) Rocky flick succeeded in being almost as good as the Best Picture-winning original. TERMINATOR 2 surpassed its predecessor (IMO, anyway), which was already a classic of its kind, while BOURNE 3 looks as though it could very well be the best of the bunch. Heck, even DIE HARD 2 had plenty of the flavour and excitement of the first one.

Still, Safari Suit puts it perfectly: "For me it was no "Rocky Balboa", but it wasn't another "Alien Vs Predator" either." For that we can at least be thankful.

I know this is a bit silly, since the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, but the flatness of DIE HARD 4.0 does make me worry for the quality of INDIANA JONES 4, a flick that was in development for a similarly long time. It's as though, once the machinery has finally ground into gear after year upon year of delays and script rewrites, everyone's lost all real drive and vision for the project and just wants to get things over and done with. Still, thankfully, Steven Spielberg's no Len Wiseman (who sure ain't no Spielberg).

[Robinson]

Still, Safari Suit puts it perfectly: "For me it was no "Rocky Balboa", but it wasn't another "Alien Vs Predator" either." For that we can at least be thankful.

Not to get off-topic but had there been no final boxing match between Dixon and Balboa, ROCKY BALBOA would've been a contender for best picture. I thought the movie was a very interesting character study.

I hear what you and Safari Suit are saying. We can be fortunate that LFODH wasn't an ALIEN:RESURRECTION either.

[Loomis]

ROCKY BALBOA would've been a contender for best picture. I thought the movie was a very interesting character study.

It has a soul, an energy, a sense of vision and purpose, that all good films must have. CASINO ROYALE also has it, and Bourne has it, which also makes them what you might call "superior popcorn fare".

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, though.... well, I never expected a deep, challenging work of high art cinema (that would have been absurd), but at the same time it strikes me as too by-the-numbers and lifeless, and definitely not an example of grade A franchise filmmaking like the abovementioned. It may not be as wretched as the likes of SPEED 2, but it nonetheless basically paddles about in the B-stream of moneygrubbing cookie-cutter sequeldom.

Still, maybe I'll have the reverse of Harmsway's experience and come to like DIE HARD 4.0 a little more. I do intend to see it again, as I remain a fan of the series, and an unrated DVD may help matters (although I don't think we tend to get those so much over here). It may grow on me a bit, and, like I say, I suspect it'll play better on DVD than on the big screen.

[Robinson]

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, though.... well, I never expected a deep, challenging work of high art cinema (that would have been absurd), but at the same time it strikes me as too by-the-numbers and lifeless, and definitely not an example of grade A franchise filmmaking like the abovementioned. It may not be as wretched as the likes of SPEED 2, but it nonetheless basically paddles about in the B-stream of moneygrubbing cookie-cutter sequeldom.

One reason why there's no "soul" in this flick is there's no real emotional resonance like the first one. Two things that helped make the original DH resonate:

1) MCCLANE TRIES TO SAVE HIS ESTRANGED WIFE (and essentially their marriage). Think about how idealistically apart Holly and John were before Hans & Co. took control- all while standing a few feet apart from each other. McClane's machismo (& sexism) are the reasons why they're separated but it's his supposedly flawed machismo that literally saves Holly and their marriage. John messed up earlier (even Argyle tells him that) & even acknowledges his shortcomings in his last conversation over the radio w/ Sgt. Powell. Which brings me to point #2...

2) MCCLANE'S RELATIONSHIP WITH AL POWELL. The conversations w/ Sgt. Powell helps flesh out McClane's character and allows us to emapthize. The emotional payoff isn't where Powell shoots Karl (Powell's action "moment" in the movie) but when John & Al finally meet- true "brothers in arms."

IMO these two things have been missing from all three subsequent sequels. At least in DIE HARDER, Holly's in peril but the two of them are on the same page and take steps to ensure the safety of others (nice use of the stun gun Holly).

If they do a fifth one, the drama and emotion has to be real and reasonably well-written.

[Loomis]

I totally agree with all of that, Robinson. Of course, McClane's daughter is in DIE HARD 4.0, but the role is underwritten and dull (while I don't imagine Bonnie Bedelia gets all that much more screentime in her DIE HARDs than Mary Elizabeth Winstead, her character is far more interesting), and she's only put in jeopardy by the time the movie seems half over and in need of a plot twist. Her role adds nothing to the film or even to McClane's motivation.

Two other things that are incredibly annoying about DIE HARD 4.0: the OTT visual style with its desaturated colours and emphasis on blue and grey, rendering this an extremely ugly flick that's genuinely harsh on the eye in places (do filmmakers these days consider it ridiculously pass

[Scottlee]

Saw the film yesterday evening.

I have to admit I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm usually a stickler for gritty realism in movies and I cringed at all the things I had previously read about this film, the reliance on CGI, the PG13 rating etc. The trailer looked naff too. However, all things said and done this was a surprise package for me. It was never going to be as good as the original, but it certainly wipes the floor with Die Hard With a Vengeance and possibly stands on a level with Die Hard 2. It might even best Die Hard 2. I'll have a second look at the films on DVD before I commit.

There just didn't seem to be anything weak about Die Hard 4. McClane seemed on good form from the start, the intensity of the violence was a step in the right direction of the first two films, and the villains were the most intimidating and varied since the original. I lost count of the amount of bad guys (and women) who actually had names. I thought the computer hacking plot might get on my nerves as the film wore on, but thankfully the quality of the action was such that I could concentrate on enjoying that and not worry too much about the overall picture.

Justin Long didn't get on my nerves. He should have done but he didn't. Credit to the actor for this and also the people who wrote his lines. The McClane/Farrell combo could have been the most irritating double act since Heche and Ford, but McClane's illiteracy in the computer world provided a good hook for a rather humerous partnership to unfold. Lucy McClane was also well cast and well presented on screen. I had predicted an unrealistic Elisha Cuthbert type I would end up wanting to become a sacrifical lamb.

Overall I have to say this was another great comeback movie. It makes the memory of DHWAV easier to bear in the same way Rocky Balboa makes Rocky 5 easier to bear.

8.5/10

[stamper]

MAN, I don't get how so many dislike DH3, it's the best with the first apart from the ending.

I doubt there is one scene in the fourth, which is as astounding as that shot of McClane turning around, to reveal he wears a panel with "I hate niggers" written on it, all of this in the middle of harlem. !

[Loomis]

While WITH A VENGEANCE doesn't annoy me as much as LIVE FREE...., I'd still say it's pretty mediocre.

However, one area in which it really kicks the stuffing out of LIVE FREE.... is its villain. I always thought Irons was coasting it and made a feeble baddie, but compared to Timothy Olyphant's absolutely wretched performance, he now looks almost as good as Alan Rickman in the first film.

[Roebuck]

MAN, I don't get how so many dislike DH3, it's the best with the first apart from the ending.

The ending kills it. No matter how good a meal is, it's always judged on desert. In the case of DHWAV you're served up tinned fruit salad with a splash of Tip-Top and you leave your seat disappointed.

[Loomis]

Yes, it has a terrible ending. I saw the unused climax on YouTube the other day, and thought it was quite good. It has Simon in a bar in eastern Europe, after some time has gone by, and he thinks he's managed to get away with it all.... but guess who's just turned up.

It's a great scene for Irons and Willis, and gripping and dark - it suggests that McClane is now a loose cannon on his own, a la Bond in LICENCE TO KILL; through waging war on evil, he's finally flipped and become a bit Batmanesque. I imagine it wasn't used because, as good as it is, it doesn't quite fit with the relatively lighthearted and OTT shenanigans that have just happened, and would have too abruptly shifted the tone of the film into grittiness before ending just as abruptly. Oh, and also because the spectacle of Willis bringing down a chopper with a gun and a power line was presumably judged to be more "audience-pleasing".

[ACE]

Hmmm, I loved Die Hard 4.0. Good fun, well-plotted and Bruce Willis' McClane was great to spend time with again. Front and centre for me is character and a clever, thriller plot. This had both, some original action and good characters. I highly recommend it.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I totally agree with all of that, Robinson. Of course, McClane's daughter is in DIE HARD 4.0, but the role is underwritten and dull (while I don't imagine Bonnie Bedelia gets all that much more screentime in her DIE HARDs than Mary Elizabeth Winstead, her character is far more interesting), and she's only put in jeopardy by the time the movie seems half over and in need of a plot twist. Her role adds nothing to the film or even to McClane's motivation.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before in this thread (I'm treating this thread as one huge spoiler so I just quickly glance over it until I've seen it), but the Roderick Thorp book that the Die Hard was based on involved the hero's (named Leyland not McClane) motivation in taking on the villains to rescue his daughter. Perhaps this is a homage to the original source of the Die Hard franchise.

[Loomis]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before in this thread (I'm treating this thread as one huge spoiler so I just quickly glance over it until I've seen it), but the Roderick Thorp book that the Die Hard was based on involved the hero's (named Leyland not McClane) motivation in taking on the villains to rescue his daughter. Perhaps this is a homage to the original source of the Die Hard franchise.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. I think it was more a case of "How do we get a Kim Bauer equivalent into this movie?".

(Something tells me DIE HARD 5 may feature Lucy McClane and Matt Farrell (now a couple, natch) in a SPEED 2-type scenario, or maybe Lucy gets a job with an oil company and terrorists take over a refinery she's visiting - something like that. No Bruce Willis - he'll probably be too expensive to re-employ, especially in light of the apparent declining grosses for the series.)

Talking of Roderick Thorp's book, I must get another copy one of these days - lost my old one in a move. I seem to remember it being quite good. BC, do you recall whether DIE HARD takes anything from it other than the basic concept of lone cop versus terrorists in a skyscraper? I don't think it does, but thought I'd check. Does it have a character called Hans Gruber, for instance?

Supposedly, it was originally bought by Fox as the basis for COMMANDO 2 (which was offered to DIE HARD director John McTiernan), but John Matrix was changed to John McClane after Schwarzenegger passed on the project, and it eventually became a stand-alone effort called DIE HARD. Curiously, though, DIE HARD 2 can at a bit of a push be regarded as a COMMANDO sequel, insofar as its villain, General Esperanza, hails from the fictional country of Val Verde, home of the bad guys in COMMANDO.

[Scottlee]

Yes, it has a terrible ending. I saw the unused climax on YouTube the other day, and thought it was quite good. It has Simon in a bar in eastern Europe, after some time has gone by, and he thinks he's managed to get away with it all.... but guess who's just turned up.

I've just gone and watched that alternative ending for the first time and I really enjoyed it. It's a very well written scene and should not IMO have been excluded. The helicopter explosion could still have featured but with only the blonde woman getting killed. She isn't included in the alternate ending after all. A pity.

[HildebrandRarity]

No Bruce Willis - he'll probably be too expensive to re-employ, especially in light of the apparent declining grosses for the series.)

Given the declining grosses, a Die Hard without Bruce would be a financial dud. Imagine Indy Jones 4 without Han So...er, without Harrison Ford box office wise...Or Rocky without Sly or a LW without Mel Gibson.

Also, as an actor's popularity rises and falls, so does his/her earning power. I suspect Willis won't be able to command DH2/DHVAW-type salary figures (inflation adjusted) for DH5.0. He's getting old and would succumb to the Hollywood life/earning cycle effect.

[Loomis]

No Bruce Willis - he'll probably be too expensive to re-employ, especially in light of the apparent declining grosses for the series.)

Given the declining grosses, a Die Hard without Bruce would be a financial dud. Imagine Indy Jones 4 without Han So...er, without Harrison Ford box office wise...Or Rocky without Sly or a LW without Mel Gibson.

You're probably right. Mind you, I understand that LETHAL WEAPON 5 was considered as a vehicle for the Chris Rock character in 4, without Gibson and Glover, although it obviously didn't come to pass and was a terrible idea. And I suspect SPEED 2, wretched film though it is, would have made far more money had it starred Keanu Reeves.

Hildebrand, what's your view of LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD's performance? Some figures from Box Office Mojo:

Domestic Total as of Jul. 8, 2007: $84,160,000 (Estimate)
Production Budget: $110 million
Domestic: $84,160,000 70.3%
+ Foreign: $35,509,765 29.7%
= Worldwide: $119,669,765
Opening Weekend: $33,369,559
(3,408 theaters, $9,791 average)
% of Total Gross: 39.7%
In Release: 12 days / 1.7 weeks

So what do you say? Are we talking blockbuster, solid hit, disappointment, or what? Is another DIE HARD viable?

[stamper]

Bruce Willis should have realised that just taking the name and running with it doesn't give you credibility, teaming up with the right players (John McTiernan, whatever his legal troubles) does. The end product is all that count.

[The Dove]

No Bruce Willis - he'll probably be too expensive to re-employ, especially in light of the apparent declining grosses for the series.)

Given the declining grosses, a Die Hard without Bruce would be a financial dud. Imagine Indy Jones 4 without Han So...er, without Harrison Ford box office wise...Or Rocky without Sly or a LW without Mel Gibson.

You're probably right. Mind you, I understand that LETHAL WEAPON 5 was considered as a vehicle for the Chris Rock character in 4, without Gibson and Glover, although it obviously didn't come to pass and was a terrible idea. And I suspect SPEED 2, wretched film though it is, would have made far more money had it starred Keanu Reeves.

Hildebrand, what's your view of LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD's performance? Some figures from Box Office Mojo:

Domestic Total as of Jul. 8, 2007: $84,160,000 (Estimate)
Production Budget: $110 million
Domestic: $84,160,000 70.3%
+ Foreign: $35,509,765 29.7%
= Worldwide: $119,669,765
Opening Weekend: $33,369,559
(3,408 theaters, $9,791 average)
% of Total Gross: 39.7%
In Release: 12 days / 1.7 weeks

So what do you say? Are we talking blockbuster, solid hit, disappointment, or what? Is another DIE HARD viable?

Those look like pretty respectable numbers for Live Free or Die Hard.. I enjoyed it a lot myself, and I think that they will go ahead with Die Hard 5..

[Tarl_Cabot]

The whole enteprise of LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD looked like a plagarization of '24' and not a "let's dust off an 80's classic to get some sentimental dollars" type of movie(T-3 which I enjoyed modestly). I loved Rocky Balboa and I was a shamelss pushover for Sly but this movie's premise never appealed to me. I like BW but he made the same mistake Arnie, sly, Harrison and even Mel made: They got bored with action and tried comedy and chic/adult movies and they ALL pretty much sucked.They probably thought they were contributing something worthy to the art with Kindegarden cop,Random Hearts,What women want,Stop or my Mom will shoot! (!) but what a load of bullocks that was...and now they're getting back to the beginning...eye of the tiger!

New rule: Once an actor establishes himself as a badass, he aint doing sacarin sweet romantic comedies or contrived Oscar bait BS. Even Vin Deisel's career is over just as it was getting got off the ground... Plan A...roll with it,adapt... I ching.

[HildebrandRarity]

No Bruce Willis - he'll probably be too expensive to re-employ, especially in light of the apparent declining grosses for the series.)

Given the declining grosses, a Die Hard without Bruce would be a financial dud. Imagine Indy Jones 4 without Han So...er, without Harrison Ford box office wise...Or Rocky without Sly or a LW without Mel Gibson.

You're probably right. Mind you, I understand that LETHAL WEAPON 5 was considered as a vehicle for the Chris Rock character in 4, without Gibson and Glover, although it obviously didn't come to pass and was a terrible idea. And I suspect SPEED 2, wretched film though it is, would have made far more money had it starred Keanu Reeves.

Hildebrand, what's your view of LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD's performance? Some figures from Box Office Mojo:

Domestic Total as of Jul. 8, 2007: $84,160,000 (Estimate)
Production Budget: $110 million
Domestic: $84,160,000 70.3%
+ Foreign: $35,509,765 29.7%
= Worldwide: $119,669,765
Opening Weekend: $33,369,559
(3,408 theaters, $9,791 average)
% of Total Gross: 39.7%
In Release: 12 days / 1.7 weeks

So what do you say? Are we talking blockbuster, solid hit, disappointment, or what? Is another DIE HARD viable?

Those look like pretty respectable numbers for Live Free or Die Hard.. I enjoyed it a lot myself, and I think that they will go ahead with Die Hard 5..

Loomis, kinda what The Dove said. "Pretty respectable" given that 'live action' movies with 'stars who've seen better days' (Tom Cruise/MI3 and Arnold S/Terminator 3 as examples; even ConneryBond and MooreBond) normally wane box office wise from their heights. These days especially when the competition features massive CGI fests (Ratatouille, Tranformers, Harry Potter 5) on a weekly basis.

I believe there's enough "Goodwill" and box-office-PLUS-ancillary-on-worldwide-basis to justify Bruce headlining a final/farewell movie in the series with the title something to the effect of DIE HARD FOREVER for a 2010 release or thereabouts.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 10 July 2007 - 12:46 AM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Talking of Roderick Thorp's book, I must get another copy one of these days - lost my old one in a move. I seem to remember it being quite good. BC, do you recall whether DIE HARD takes anything from it other than the basic concept of lone cop versus terrorists in a skyscraper? I don't think it does, but thought I'd check. Does it have a character called Hans Gruber, for instance?

It's been a while, but I think the villains were domestic crooks rather than a foreign terrorist group, and therefore no "Hans Gruber."

About the only thing I vividly remember from the book that relates to the movie is that McClane's jump over the side of the building with the fire hose wrapped around him is taken directly from the book. It's one scene in the movie I'd have thought was pure hollywood and not lifted from any book.

[Loomis]

No Bruce Willis - he'll probably be too expensive to re-employ, especially in light of the apparent declining grosses for the series.)

Given the declining grosses, a Die Hard without Bruce would be a financial dud. Imagine Indy Jones 4 without Han So...er, without Harrison Ford box office wise...Or Rocky without Sly or a LW without Mel Gibson.

You're probably right. Mind you, I understand that LETHAL WEAPON 5 was considered as a vehicle for the Chris Rock character in 4, without Gibson and Glover, although it obviously didn't come to pass and was a terrible idea. And I suspect SPEED 2, wretched film though it is, would have made far more money had it starred Keanu Reeves.

Hildebrand, what's your view of LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD's performance? Some figures from Box Office Mojo:

Domestic Total as of Jul. 8, 2007: $84,160,000 (Estimate)
Production Budget: $110 million
Domestic: $84,160,000 70.3%
+ Foreign: $35,509,765 29.7%
= Worldwide: $119,669,765
Opening Weekend: $33,369,559
(3,408 theaters, $9,791 average)
% of Total Gross: 39.7%
In Release: 12 days / 1.7 weeks

So what do you say? Are we talking blockbuster, solid hit, disappointment, or what? Is another DIE HARD viable?

Those look like pretty respectable numbers for Live Free or Die Hard.. I enjoyed it a lot myself, and I think that they will go ahead with Die Hard 5..

Loomis, kinda what The Dove said. "Pretty respectable" given that 'live action' movies with 'stars who've seen better days' (Tom Cruise/MI3 and Arnold S/Terminator 3 as examples; even ConneryBond and MooreBond) normally wane box office wise from their heights. These days especially when the competition features massive CGI fests (Ratatouille, Tranformers, Harry Potter 5) on a weekly basis.

I believe there's enough "Goodwill" and box-office-PLUS-ancillary-on-worldwide-basis to justify Bruce headlining a final/farewell movie in the series with the title something to the effect of DIE HARD FOREVER for a 2010 release or thereabouts.

Maybe, just maybe. I won't argue with those who think LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is a pretty respectable hit, but I did expect it to do a lot better. I thought it was an absolute shoe-in to do at least - at least - $150 million at the Stateside box office (which itself would have been somewhat down on the DIE HARD franchise's previous form, inflation adjusted), but that seems fairly unlikely now. It's done only marginally better than ROCKY BALBOA, but cost much more. I reckon it's done as well as it's done thanks largely to fan nostalgia - a "goodwill" that won't be around so much a few years from now.

Looks as though the return of the '80s action stars hasn't quite tickled Joe Public in the same way as it's excited 30-something fanboys who post on sites like AICN. Then again, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III underperformed, did it not? So perhaps the problem is that the whole action blockbuster sequel thing that had such an excellent innings throughout the '80s and '90s is finally on the wane. Yet, as ever, remarkably, James Bond still stands tall.

In any case, DIE HARD 4.0 is an abomination that's an insult to everything that us old school DIE HARD fans hold dear.... although I seem to remember that I may have made that point once or twice already.