403 replies to this topic

[Scottlee]

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.

Ah it ain't that bad. Give it a second glance on DVD. For maximum effect, watch it the night after seeing Die Hard with a Vengeance. The critics have Die Hard 4.0 down as a '79' on RottenTomatoes, which makes it quite the comeback film given that Die Hard 2 scored in the 50's and Die Hard 3 down in the '30's even! (I can't remember all the exact scores).

[The Dove]

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.

Ah it ain't that bad. Give it a second glance on DVD. For maximum effect, watch it the night after seeing Die Hard with a Vengeance. The critics have Die Hard 4.0 down as a '79' on RottenTomatoes, which makes it quite the comeback film given that Die Hard 2 scored in the 50's and Die Hard 3 down in the '30's even! (I can't remember all the exact scores).

I agree with you Scottlee.. Live Free or Die Hard is not that bad of a film (by the way Loomis, I'm an old school Die Hard fan and I don't consider LFODH an abomination!). Its different than the other three, but in a good sense since its on a much grander scale. I think that with a little time to let it sink in, Live Free or Die Hard will eventually fit into the series as a great sequel.

[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.

Sorry Loom, don't trust my memory TOO much.

Nothing Lasts Forever

[marktmurphy]

Goodness- what a load of terrible miseries. No it isn't an all-time classic like the first Die Hard, but if you were expecting that I'm not sure you approached it with the right mindset. My mate and I went to have some a bit of old school action film fun, and this film does exactly what it says on the tin. It's pacey all the way through and feels like it's a lot shorter than it actually is, which is a good sign (especially after up-their-own-bottom snoozefests like Pirates). Ultimately its much more likable than it by rights should be, and it's just plain fun. If you were expecting some sort of golden monument to Bruce Willis as Best Action Star of All Time to be preserved throughout the rest of history then I don't know why you went to see it- it's a fun action movie that kept me entertained and I'm now forgetting about.
It's certainly the least overblown and most fun blockbuster of this year so far.

[Loomis]

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.

Sorry Loom, don't trust my memory TOO much.

Nothing Lasts Forever

Cheers, BC. Love that cover! Looks like NOTHING LASTS FOREVER is a must-read for DIE HARD fans (the copy I owned way back in the year dot was actually a movie tie-in edition called - wait for it - DIE HARD, with the film poster artwork on the cover, which opened up as big a gulf between printed page and big screen content as those BOURNE SUPREMACY paperbacks of a couple of years ago with Damon on the cover, or indeed a copy of MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN with a cover image of Moore).

[Loomis]

No (DIE HARD 4.0) isn't an all-time classic like the first Die Hard, but if you were expecting that I'm not sure you approached it with the right mindset.

Granted. But I did hope that it would be a truly excellent, grade A franchise entry like CASINO ROYALE or ROCKY BALBOA (or MAD MAX 2, or SUPERMAN RETURNS, or THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, or [Whatever You Consider One Of The All-Time Great Sequels]), instead of merely "a fun action movie". And I don't think it was even that - I found it joyless, mechanical and dull.

I know I'm very much in a minority here, though. The film has had a fairly rave review even from veteran critic Richard Corliss:

http://rogerebert.su...S/70628002/1023

It's certainly the least overblown and most fun blockbuster of this year so far.

Fair enough. I skipped all of this year's other blockbusters (300, PIRATES and so on), since I knew they weren't my cup of tea. While I dislike DIE HARD 4.0 (although I will give it another chance at some point, especially as I'm a committed McClane fanboy ), I've absolutely no doubt that I'd find its contemporary competition even worse.

[marktmurphy]

No (DIE HARD 4.0) isn't an all-time classic like the first Die Hard, but if you were expecting that I'm not sure you approached it with the right mindset.

Granted. But I did hope that it would be a truly excellent, grade A franchise entry like CASINO ROYALE or ROCKY BALBOA (or MAD MAX 2, or SUPERMAN RETURNS, or THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, or [Whatever You Consider One Of The All-Time Great Sequels]), instead of merely "a fun action movie". And I don't think it was even that - I found it joyless, mechanical and dull.

Well, reading through your posts in this thread from last year as I did earlier, I'm afraid that I'm not sure this film was for you- it's not supposed to analysed and sliced into its constituent parts- it's not supposed to be high art, sifted, filleted and each second being compared to that in each previous high end movie. It's just an action movie, and it is fun if you turn your brain off. If you'd have perhaps said 'Is there anything on at the cinema- ooh a Die Hard; might pop along and see that' as most people did, I think you'd had have actually enjoyed it. Looks like you've over-analysed this one to death, I'm afraid.
(And 'Superman Returns' was a good sequel? And 'Rocky Balboa'? I'm not sure how you can criticise Die Hard 4 for being too slight if you liked Balboa! There's nothing to it! A man quite fancies having a boxing match, thinks about it, has a quick fight, end of movie! )

It's certainly the least overblown and most fun blockbuster of this year so far.

Fair enough. I skipped all of this year's other blockbusters (300, PIRATES and so on), since I knew they weren't my cup of tea. While I dislike DIE HARD 4.0 (although I will give it another chance at some point, especially as I'm a committed McClane fanboy ), I've absolutely no doubt that I'd find its contemporary competition even worse.

It's true- perhaps I was beaten into lower expectations by dross like Pirates and the not-as-bad-but-still-disappointing Spider Man!
When you see Die hard again, have a pint beforehand and take some bloke mates on a Friday night- I think that'll help.

[Loomis]

Looks like you've over-analysed this one to death, I'm afraid.

I certainly plead guilty to that!

And 'Superman Returns' was a good sequel?

I think so, yes. Knocked spots off III and IV, anyway. 'Course, there's a school of thought that says RETURNS isn't even a sequel to those films (but only to I and II), but let's not get into that.

And 'Rocky Balboa'? I'm not sure how you can criticise Die Hard 4 for being too slight if you liked Balboa! There's nothing to it! A man quite fancies having a boxing match, thinks about it, has a quick fight, end of movie! )

What? How very dare you!

[Scottlee]

It's true- perhaps I was beaten into lower expectations by dross like Pirates and the not-as-bad-but-still-disappointing Spider Man!

Those were the previous two films I had seen at the cinema before Die Hard 4, and both of them bored the living hell out of me. I was particularly disappointed with Pirates 3, having enjoyed the first film as I did.

For an indication as to just how serious Pirates 3 is played, consider this - At one point Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom conduct their entire wedding ceremony whilst simultaneously fighting hoardes of skeleton killers. Ridiculous.

[Harmsway]

And 'Superman Returns' was a good sequel?

I think so, yes. Knocked spots off III and IV, anyway. 'Course, there's a school of thought that says RETURNS isn't even a sequel to those films (but only to I and II), but let's not get into that.

That's not really a "school of thought." That's what the director of SUPERMAN RETURNS, Bryan Singer, explicitly said. SUPERMAN RETURNS is most certainly not a sequel to III and IV.

[Loomis]

And 'Superman Returns' was a good sequel?

I think so, yes. Knocked spots off III and IV, anyway. 'Course, there's a school of thought that says RETURNS isn't even a sequel to those films (but only to I and II), but let's not get into that.

That's not really a "school of thought." That's what the director of SUPERMAN RETURNS, Bryan Singer, explicitly said. SUPERMAN RETURNS is most certainly not a sequel to III and IV.

No, if anything it's actually a prequel to III and IV.

I know that many people would rather pretend that III and IV do not exist, but the fact is that they do. As far as I can see, the Superman franchise currently contains five films, plus a spinoff, SUPERGIRL, that should probably be considered part of the canon as well.

[Harmsway]

And 'Superman Returns' was a good sequel?

I think so, yes. Knocked spots off III and IV, anyway. 'Course, there's a school of thought that says RETURNS isn't even a sequel to those films (but only to I and II), but let's not get into that.

That's not really a "school of thought." That's what the director of SUPERMAN RETURNS, Bryan Singer, explicitly said. SUPERMAN RETURNS is most certainly not a sequel to III and IV.

No, if anything it's actually a prequel to III and IV.

You could go that route, I suppose. Depends on whether SUPERMAN RETURNS' sequels ever end up contradicting III or IV. Which they might.

Superman is really a mess as far as continuity is concerned. You have the original four films, and then you have SUPERMAN RETURNS. SUPERMAN RETURNS is set as a sequel of sorts to I and II, but ignores smaller aspects of those films (like the "amnesia kiss" Superman gives Lois at the end of SUPERMAN II). Believe me, it has the fanwankers going crazy.

[Scottlee]

I know that many people would rather pretend that III and IV do not exist, but the fact is that they do. As far as I can see, the Superman franchise currently contains five films, plus a spinoff, SUPERGIRL, that should probably be considered part of the canon as well.

If that Jinx film had come out though, would we really be able to bear calling it part of the Bond canon?

I haven't seen Superman Returns but I'm willing to bet it's superior to Superman III and IV. I wasn't overly enthralled by Batman Begins but it's a masterpiece compared to Batman and Robin, just as Casino Royale is to Die Another Day. Judging by the average standard of recent reboot moves (or at least 'semi-reboot'), it's hard to think that continuity is not a worthy sacrifice.

[Loomis]

I know that many people would rather pretend that III and IV do not exist, but the fact is that they do. As far as I can see, the Superman franchise currently contains five films, plus a spinoff, SUPERGIRL, that should probably be considered part of the canon as well.

If that Jinx film had come out though, would we really be able to bear calling it part of the Bond canon?

Yes.

[Loomis]

And 'Superman Returns' was a good sequel?

I think so, yes. Knocked spots off III and IV, anyway. 'Course, there's a school of thought that says RETURNS isn't even a sequel to those films (but only to I and II), but let's not get into that.

That's not really a "school of thought." That's what the director of SUPERMAN RETURNS, Bryan Singer, explicitly said. SUPERMAN RETURNS is most certainly not a sequel to III and IV.

No, if anything it's actually a prequel to III and IV.

You could go that route, I suppose. Depends on whether SUPERMAN RETURNS' sequels ever end up contradicting III or IV. Which they might.

Superman is really a mess as far as continuity is concerned. You have the original four films, and then you have SUPERMAN RETURNS. SUPERMAN RETURNS is set as a sequel of sorts to I and II, but ignores smaller aspects of those films (like the "amnesia kiss" Superman gives Lois at the end of SUPERMAN II). Believe me, it has the fanwankers going crazy.

Sounds just like Bond, then, which is also a mess as far as continuity is concerned. But just because CASINO ROYALE contradicts, say, TOMORROW NEVER DIES (and, say, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER ignores ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE), I see no reason to state that it isn't all one series.

Had CR been made by a new creative team (as opposed to by Broccoli, Wilson, Purvis, Wade, Campbell, Arnold and so on), and had it not featured things like the gunbarrel and The James Bond Theme, I might be tempted to consider it the start of an all-new series, but as it is I view it as BOND 21, not BOND 2.1.

[marktmurphy]

And 'Superman Returns' was a good sequel?

I think so, yes. Knocked spots off III and IV, anyway. 'Course, there's a school of thought that says RETURNS isn't even a sequel to those films (but only to I and II), but let's not get into that.

Despite the characters being all wrong (why was Lois so unlikable? Why would Superman fall in love with a woman who never smiles? Not once. Not even to her kid. Why did Superman leave without saying goodbye? He's a bit of a git isn't he? He wasn't like this in the first movies); and the tone being ruined: I can't really see how you can say Die Hard 4.0 had no fun in it and Superman Returns -which is the sequel to some of the most fun movies ever- was, when it's one of the most miserable movies out there. The theme tune doesn't even fit anymore because you never feel like marching with joy like you do when the first two are on.

Ooh- this is OT, but I gotta say it- went to see the London Symphony Orchestra doing their free outdoors movie concert last night, and the Superman main title being played by the original orchestra is one of the most fun things you can hear live! They also dashed off a really very impressive version of the Rocky 'Gotta Fly Now' theme- also fab. A shame Die Hard never got a good theme...

And 'Rocky Balboa'? I'm not sure how you can criticise Die Hard 4 for being too slight if you liked Balboa! There's nothing to it! A man quite fancies having a boxing match, thinks about it, has a quick fight, end of movie! )

What? How very dare you!

Arf! It was nice and everything, but it's a very gentle film, isn't it? Not exactly soul-stirring stuff, just the story of a nice man making a nice friend and having a nice evening out in a boxing ring. It's... nice. If you know what I mean. Feels like a Sunday evening ITV drama. A good one, but not exactly challenging or taxing emotionally.

For an indication as to just how serious Pirates 3 is played, consider this - At one point Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom conduct their entire wedding ceremony whilst simultaneously fighting hoardes of skeleton killers. Ridiculous.

Well, I quite liked that bit actually! The problem for me wasn't that it was played too silly (it's about Pirates! It should be silly!) but rather that at other times it was played too serious, as if we really care about these characters as much as the people who've spent five years making these films do. It's a problem that filmmakers often get- they're so close to these things that they forget that seeing how Darth Vader grows up isn't the bit the audience want to see. Pirates also had an impenetrable plot and goes on for a whole week: Die Hard 4.0 is bright and breezy, doesn't ask too much, knows how far to go with the characterisation and backstory (not so far as to bore you), doesn't outstay it's welcome and consequently beats Pirates into a cocked hat.

Incidentally, bought the Die Hard boxed set today and watched no.3 again- it really doesn't seem that superior to 4 to me, although it might be a bit more epic. But where's the Alternate Ending the box promises?

[Harmsway]

why was Lois so unlikable?

I don't think she was.

Why would Superman fall in love with a woman who never smiles? Not once. Not even to her kid.

I can remember a few scenes where she smiles, actually.

Why did Superman leave without saying goodbye? He's a bit of a git isn't he?

Sure, but he atones for it, doesn't he? He has superpowers, but he isn't a perfect guy. He makes mistakes.

The theme tune doesn't even fit anymore because you never feel like marching with joy like you do when the first two are on.

Well, I think SUPERMAN II is a pretty poor film. Yes, III and IV are worse, but it doesn't make II any better.

But I think the march here means a lot, partially because of the darkness. When Superman's there finally saving the day after all of it, it works like a charm. I do think SUPERMAN RETURNS is a lot of fun to sit through - the comedy with Luthor is mostly fantastic. The only time where I think SUPERMAN goes into the darker area is for the final third, which also has its high points (the Superman "Via Dolorosa" is one of the best Superman moments I could ever ask for).

Arf! It was nice and everything, but it's a very gentle film, isn't it? Not exactly soul-stirring stuff, just the story of a nice man making a nice friend and having a nice evening out in a boxing ring. It's... nice. If you know what I mean. Feels like a Sunday evening ITV drama. A good one, but not exactly challenging or taxing emotionally.

Actually, I agree. I wasn't that bowled over by ROCKY BALBOA.

Incidentally, bought the Die Hard boxed set today and watched no.3 again- it really doesn't seem that superior to 4 to me, although it might be a bit more epic. But where's the Alternate Ending the box promises?

I still prefer LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD to DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE. VENGEANCE does have some aspects where it has the ups on LIVE FREE, but I think LIVE FREE is more enjoyable, warts and all.

[Loomis]

Arf! It was nice and everything, but it's a very gentle film, isn't it?

Well.... yeah, I guess, but what's wrong with that? If it's bloodbaths you're after, Sly will oblige next year with the goretastic JOHN RAMBO.

Not exactly soul-stirring stuff

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Then again, I'm a frothing-at-the-mouth fan of the Rocky films. What if someone were to tell you or I that all the James Bond films are the same and he goes on a mission and wears a lot of nice clothes, sleeps with a couple of stunning women, says a few groansome quips, good stunt or two and then kills the baddie? Well, they'd be right, of course, but then they're just not the sort of people who like what a Bond film has to offer.

Feels like a Sunday evening ITV drama.

Erm, no. That's kind of true of ROCKY V, but in quality terms and cinematic style ROCKY BALBOA is CASINO ROYALE by comparison to its predecessor.

I think Rocky is one of those "You either like it or you don't" things. I know you could make that claim for absolutely anything, but for some reason it strikes me as particularly true of Rocky.

[marktmurphy]

why was Lois so unlikable?

I don't think she was.

Why would Superman fall in love with a woman who never smiles? Not once. Not even to her kid.

I can remember a few scenes where she smiles, actually.

Well I certainly can't. She doesn't smile when Superman makes his first reappearance, and by the end when she's back in love with him she doesn't even give a reassuring smile to her own child who's just given the comatose Superman a cute little kiss on the cheek! She's a miserable cow who when asked if she wants to go on a flight with Supes replies with "Well okay, but I can't be long". Why am I supposed to like her again? Oh yeah- Margot Kidder. This new Lois is a different character.

Why did Superman leave without saying goodbye? He's a bit of a git isn't he?

Sure, but he atones for it, doesn't he? He has superpowers, but he isn't a perfect guy. He makes mistakes.

I'm not sure- does he even say sorry, or is he too busy staring into the middle distance and stalking Lois? Reeve's Superman actually used to smile too. Where's the joy?

Arf! It was nice and everything, but it's a very gentle film, isn't it?

Well.... yeah, I guess, but what's wrong with that? If it's bloodbaths you're after, Sly will oblige next year with the goretastic JOHN RAMBO.

Nothing wrong with it, I was just expecting a bit of meat and/or tension. Not gore or action, just some drama.

Not exactly soul-stirring stuff

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Then again, I'm a frothing-at-the-mouth fan of the Rocky films. What if someone were to tell you or I that all the James Bond films are the same and he goes on a mission and wears a lot of nice clothes, sleeps with a couple of stunning women, says a few groansome quips, good stunt or two and then kills the baddie? Well, they'd be right, of course, but then they're just not the sort of people who like what a Bond film has to offer.

Well, yeah- they'd be right. You have to be a really big Bond fan to get a kick from mentions of Tracy or whatever; perhaps you have to be really attached to the Rocky characters to get very moved by Balboa. Don't get me wrong; it was very sweet, but it's an epilogue rather than a sequel and is a bit too slight to be a standalone film. Die Hard 4.0 is a film all on its own merits.

Feels like a Sunday evening ITV drama.

Erm, no. That's kind of true of ROCKY V, but in quality terms and cinematic style ROCKY BALBOA is CASINO ROYALE by comparison to its predecessor.

It being better than its predecessor doesn't make it any more dramatic as a standalone film or any less of a Sunday night play. It's just a nice bit of fluff.

I think Rocky is one of those "You either like it or you don't" things. I know you could make that claim for absolutely anything, but for some reason it strikes me as particularly true of Rocky.

Not really- I liked it; I enjoyed it. I've enjoyed all the previous Rocky films where he's played for big stakes, had his huge emotional ups and downs and just enjoyed the spectacle. Balboa didn't have any tension or high drama, it was like a sort of cocoa version of Rocky, and that's what Stallone was going for. It was nice enough but not exactly the most powerful film of all time.

[Loomis]

...it was like a sort of cocoa version of Rocky, and that's what Stallone was going for.

Indeed.

But I don't think the film lacks drama, or emotional ups and downs. And the stakes for Balboa are as big as they've ever been - getting over the loss of Adrian, coming to terms with his fear of a lonely old age, mending his relationship with his son, and, of course, proving to himself that he doesn't quite have one foot in the grave to the extent that he doesn't have one last fight in him. ROCKY BALBOA may not have the "spectacle" of the earlier entries, with larger-than-life villains like Clubber Lang and Ivan Drago, and ludicrously stylised bouts, but there hasn't been so much genuine, powerful drama in the series since the first film. Tension? Maybe not, but I don't think that's ever really been part of the Rocky universe.

It was nice enough but not exactly the most powerful film of all time.

No one would say that, though. Apart from me.

[Harmsway]

Why am I supposed to like her again? Oh yeah- Margot Kidder. This new Lois is a different character.

Yeah, she is a new character, and I'm thankful for that. I hate Margot Kidder as Lois Lane. Christopher Reeve himself would have made a better Lois.

I'm not sure- does he even say sorry, or is he too busy staring into the middle distance and stalking Lois?

I believe he says sorry.

[marktmurphy]

Why am I supposed to like her again? Oh yeah- Margot Kidder. This new Lois is a different character.

Yeah, she is a new character, and I'm thankful for that. I hate Margot Kidder as Lois Lane. Christopher Reeve himself would have made a better Lois.

Well, I can't agree- I think Kidder's great, full of spunk and energy and still very feminine; I can understand why Superman would go for someone with her spirit. Bosworth's Lois has no redeeming qualities at all that I can think of; she's no fun, and Bosworth's zero charisma factor doesn't help at all. I can't even think of a defining character trait, apart from 'miserable'.

I'm not sure- does he even say sorry, or is he too busy staring into the middle distance and stalking Lois?

I believe he says sorry.

I'm sure you're right; can't bring myself to find out. So he's a selfish git, or at least, a rude one who doesn't say goodbye, and she can't bring herself to understand why he might have done it. What a great pair.

[Harmsway]

We're just not going to agree on this one. I could keep going, but there's no point.

[stamper]

The alternate ending of Die Hard 3 is on disc 2 of your 2 DVD set.

[marktmurphy]

The alternate ending of Die Hard 3 is on disc 2 of your 2 DVD set.

Which section do you have it in? I can't find it at all.

[stamper]

alternate ending ?

[marktmurphy]

Nope, don't have that on my disc. How annoying.

[Loomis]

It's on YouTube:

[marktmurphy]

Yeah, I found it on YouTube when I found I couldn't watch it on the DVD- thanks for the link anyway. Just a bit annoyed that it's not there.

[Publius]

It's on YouTube:

Wow, I love that ending. Would have made the movie a lot more satisfying. Wish they had gone with it.