Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Die hardererer....

Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Die hardererer.... Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Die hardererer.... - 23/7/2007 2:41:17 PM   


Posts: 6522
Joined: 10/4/2007

ORIGINAL: caprat

Great summer action fest. Was my fave movie of the summer until I saw transformers today.
It has everything you you expect from a die hard movie great action, great wisecracks but unfortunately the bad guy was a bit shit.
Willis can still carry an action movie and was ably assisted by Justin Long  who provides much of the laughs.
That should be that though now, let the franchise go out on a high.

The bad guy was cool - it's the dude from Scream 2

(in reply to caprat)
Post #: 151
RE: Die Hard 4.0 - 24/7/2007 8:30:15 AM   

Posts: 1304
Joined: 7/10/2005
Entertaining but pretty forgettable and probably the weakest of the series so far. It still holds the attention for its running time and has some decent if not awe-inspiring action sequences...the problem is, it just doesnt feel like a die hard film. Even number 3 which departed from the formula (i guess it had to, how many times can one man, etc etc?) still had that die hard vibe. This one ditches it virtually all together and mainly hangs together and works due to the one man killling machine that is John McClane. A decent supporting cast helps too even though they are not given much to work with, Olyphants bad guy just doesnt convince that he is truly badass, he feels restrained somewhat.

The action scenes are pretty over the top at times and yet again parkour makes an appearance but unlike in casino royale it is not used to its full devastating effect. Ah, I do feel nostalgic for the first die hard though, still the greatest action film ever made simply because as well as having the action chops and making it relatively believable it had well written characters and gave time to develop them. There are no real surprises in this, its just another decent action movie and John McClane deserves better. But then again is there anywhere left to go with him that doesnt rip the piss out of the whole thing?!


I'm just a fella. I think beer should be cold and boots should be dusty. I think 911 was bad. And freedom? Well, I think thats just a little bit better.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 152
RE: Diehard 4.0 - 25/7/2007 2:05:22 PM   

Posts: 3194
Joined: 9/10/2005
From: london
i loved it i thought it was a excellent action film,i did feel the timothy olyphants performance was abit flat only because i know he couldve done better,justin long was grand great delivery. yes it did feel different from other die hard films but thats coz they dont make films like that anymore,and yeah they edited out the fucker of ykamf but come on,*spoiler*if your gonna edit it out then what better way then mcclane shooting himself!i mean really people should stop goin to see movies to compare it to other or break down to every flaw and just go and see the movie!you will enjoy yourself,i know i did.


**its that warriors vs baseball fury element
that glitches motor sensory developement
i am a star really,**

Post #: 153
RE: Diehard 4.0 - 25/7/2007 5:14:54 PM   


Posts: 6522
Joined: 10/4/2007
I think it's still the best film this summer and i've seen (except Transformers yet...) all the major ones.  It's just action non stop from start to finish which is what you want isn't it? And who cares if they edited a swear word? If that makes you upset then you need to get a life lol

(in reply to swan)
Post #: 154
RE: Diehard 4.0 - 25/7/2007 5:23:23 PM   

Posts: 2331
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Just 3 doors away from Heaven
Die Hard 4.0 is easily the best of the summer action films, the plot maybe weak but it makes up for that with some great set pieces, great Willis performence and a non stop thrill ride pace. It's not the best of the far, but its a nice addition. The only place it really gets bad is the obvious CGI Airjet fight which was hilariously bad.



My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.

(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 155
RE: Diehard 4.0 - 25/7/2007 5:26:11 PM   


Posts: 6522
Joined: 10/4/2007
For the first time in ages I actually enjoyed the whole film.  I'd say it's 4/5 'cause it's not quite as good as part one.

(in reply to lbiu)
Post #: 156
RE: Diehard 4.0 - 25/7/2007 5:42:46 PM   

Posts: 2331
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Just 3 doors away from Heaven

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

For the first time in ages I actually enjoyed the whole film.  I'd say it's 4/5 'cause it's not quite as good as part one.

Its definetly better than Die Hard 2

< Message edited by lbiu -- 25/7/2007 5:44:17 PM >


My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.

(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 157
RE: Diehard 4.0 - 25/7/2007 5:46:55 PM   


Posts: 6522
Joined: 10/4/2007
I think it's better then 3 too

(in reply to lbiu)
Post #: 158
RE: Die hard 4.0 - 26/7/2007 9:00:17 PM   

Posts: 141
Joined: 7/10/2005
From: Amity
I was one of the films many skeptics  , and went expecting bad things , but was actually pleasantly surprised to find it was rather good .

Updated to modern times , as well as faithful to the older films , it was an enjoyable sequel which could have been far far worse.

Set in an airport and directed by Renny Harlin for example.

(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 159
RE: Diehard 4.0 - 31/7/2007 12:19:48 AM   
The Lensman

Posts: 1730
Joined: 15/3/2007
REALLY POOR! this is just an action film starring Bruce Willis with some odd references to John McClane just to remind you that this tripe is meant to be a Die Hard film. JM takes on a fighter plane? Len Wiseman = Berk

(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 160
RE: Die Hard 4.0 - 31/7/2007 11:59:06 AM   


Posts: 207
Joined: 3/12/2005
It did not feel like a Die Hard film at all. I suppose that is to be expected when a film has a director with a completely different style of film making than the previous one, a far less talented composer and a change of rating.

A decent, enjoyable film but only a Die Hard film by name.

If they had called the film ''Action Cop'' and changed the name of Bruce Willis character to ''Jack Steel'' (just an example) this film would have easily been a completely different, stand alone action movie bearing no referrence or likeness to the Die Hard series.

(in reply to jamesbondguy)
Post #: 161
RE: Die Hard 4.0 - 1/8/2007 4:13:42 PM   


Posts: 20
Joined: 20/7/2007
I was pretty impressed with this film, compared to all the dissappointing sequels that have come this year. Here are my full thoughts if you're interested.


Read more at -

Watch. Enjoy. Discuss.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 162
RE: Die Hard 4.0 - 2/8/2007 8:43:00 AM   
Danger Man


Posts: 1
Joined: 1/8/2007
I quite liked the film. It didn't feel like a Die Hard film (whatever that means) and much of the action was way OTT but it was still good fun. McClane beating Mai Lihn up was a bit on the edge, I thought. She may have been a baddie but there's something not quite right about watching a woman get beat up. The film was obviously aimed at a younger audience as well;  Farrell was annoying  but Lucy was cute. All in all I think three stars was a fair award.

Oh, and I've noticed that one or two people have mentioned his catchphrase was cut short. I can only assume that this was done in the US as he certainly said "MF" in the version I saw!

< Message edited by Danger Man -- 2/8/2007 8:50:10 AM >

(in reply to ripblade)
Post #: 163
RE: Die Hard 4.0 - 16/8/2007 11:53:43 PM   

Posts: 2527
Joined: 1/11/2006
From: HM Prison Slade
More than just a random collection of impossible action set-pieces, but not a lot more. Best word do describe: solid.
Post #: 164
RE: Die Hard 4.0 - 17/8/2007 4:36:05 PM   
hott fuzz


Posts: 5
Joined: 17/8/2007
Brillent film. I have to say not as good as the others.. and it was a bit over the top with the jet plane but overall a good enough film

(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 165
RE: Don't waste 2 hours of your life. - 6/9/2007 6:15:44 PM   

Posts: 947
Joined: 29/12/2005
Die Hard 4.0   Dir: Len Wiseman

Finally got around to see this one. It so happend my Filmchannel showed all the previous Die Hard films over the last weeks, so I went in prepared... I really like the Die Hard films. They're tongue in cheek, full on action films with a perfect character in the lead. Wisecracking, grumpy, tough as nails John McClane.
McTiernan was the perfect director for the first one. Harlin did a great job with the second one. Lot's of action, a high octane story and Bruce in his best vest. The third seemed to be a little different, making it more of a buddy movie and upping the scale from tower > airport > New York. But it luckily had the terrific direction by McTiernan and the nice presence of Jackson.
Now this. Die hard 4.0.
It's bad. Really bad. Bad in a "direct to video, B-movie-bad" way. I can't say some of the scenes weren't funny and some of the action is done well...okay. But this is too over the top. The premise is too silly for words and all the techno babble that is used is so laughable that you couldn't care less what happens.
But the greatest shame is that Willis seems to know that he is in something bad. He seems uninspired and uninterested. His scenes with Justin Long are the best and surprisingly that's because of the acting by Long. He seems to enjoy the nonsense and injects the movie with the humour so absent for most of the runningtime.
Wiseman is a very average director and it looks like he was somewhat overwheled by the project.




It's not how long it takes, it's who's taking you...
Post #: 166
RE: Don't waste 2 hours of your life. - 21/9/2007 1:51:47 PM   

Posts: 5201
Joined: 2/10/2005
How did Wiseman manage to pull this off? i thought Die Hard 4 was a very entertaining film, the action was very good and gritty, i felt every punch, shot and explosion; far better

effort and quality than both underworld films. I didnt really notice the lack of hardkore blood ala previous outings, however the swearing issue did bother me, especially with the

Yippee Kiyay *BLAM*. on that note, what a cheap way for a head honcho to die. Elephant man was a shite villian, not really menacing and didnt have a real prescence, but then again

that was hinted at throughout the film, that his character is a total pussy. its safe to say i enjoyed this film, every action set, which is surprising as i expected a "2 star affair".

a good watch, besides one absolutely dreadful event of editing. judging by that, and the level of gore in underworld i would expect a directors cut, however i dont hold much hope

for wiseman to choose to do such a thing.


"Darth Silas - I love Craig as Bond too. Genius. "- Jackmansgirl 15/7/2008

Last films watched:

The Road - 4/5
Chronicle - 4/5
Twilight Breaking Dawn p1 - 1/5
Warrior - 5/5
Super 8 - 5/5
Paranormal Activity 3 - 3/5
MI 4 - 2/5

(in reply to BobM70)
Post #: 167
RE: Die Hard 4.0 - 2/11/2007 10:08:22 PM   

Posts: 7606
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: Not Local
And so we come to the belated 4th instalment in the much-cherished Die Hard franchise a full 12 years after Die Hard With Vengeance. Anticipation was high (as was cynicism) but finally we see the return of one of cinema's most iconic heroes... and I'm sorry to say this film is a big disappointment for me
The success of the Die Hard films rests largely with the character of John McClane and this is Die Hard 4.0's biggest shortfall. Probably Bruce Willis' least convincing performance as McClane. He did seem a quite bored for a lot of the film probably due to the fact that the screenplay failed to provide him with anything McClane-like to say. I think the writers expected lines such as "I'm gonna kill ya/beat you up/whatever" to be funny or cool purely because McClane was saying them but unfortunately most of the delivery fell flat. Also the censor-friendly dialogue seemed to neuter the McClane that we all know and love and rob the franchise of it's heart.
I thought it was a very technically poor film specifically regarding editing and continuity. Some scenes just didn't seem to flow right and different takes were very apparent during conversations and sequences. The term 'rush-job' springs to mind. The CGI/greenscreen stuff was too obvious and took you out of the moment during the action sequences. Another problem was the ADR. You could clearly see some of the dialogue was re-dubbed afterwards (something more and more common these days) due to it being out of sync with the film.
Some of the physical stuntwork was undoubtedly impressive and well executed but a couple of the set-pieces (car/helicopter collision, plane surfing) but just seemed out of place and unnecessary. Just don't get me started on Maggie 'Terminator' Q and her apparent invulnerability to being run over, driven though plate glass and crushed against a wall by a speeding SUV.
The whole terrorism/'climate of fear' angle worked well because it's obviously very relevant to what's going on in the world today but to be honest, as a thematic device, it would have the same effect in any film.
Some of the key ingredients for a successful Die Hard film were present (one man against the odds, sneering villains etc.) but the lengthy gap since the last instalment, the hip new director and the aforementioned McClane/script issues seem to suggest that this film was just an attempt to try and justify John McClane getting back on the big screen. Sadly it doesn't.
Lucy McClane was fit though.

< Message edited by Biggus -- 7/11/2007 1:17:26 PM >


"They offered me a hundred grand. You wanna know something? When I found out I'd get my hands on you, I said I'd do it for nothing."

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 168
RE: Die Hard 4.0 - 3/11/2007 12:25:41 AM   

Posts: 5021
Joined: 13/10/2005


Don't even get me started on Maggie 'Terminator' Q and her apparent invulnerability to being run over, driven though plate glass and crushed against a wall by a speeding SUV.
Lucy McClane was fit though.

*pedant alert* On closer inspection, Maggie Q was on the bonnet when the SUV hit the wall. I thought she's been crushed but her legs weren't hanging off the front.... doesn't explain why her legs weren't shattered having an SUV driven into her at 40mph in the first place though....

Oh, and Lucy McLane was indeed fit. Giggity.


"It's all.... part of the plan...."

(in reply to Biggus)
Post #: 169
RE: Fantastic if you ignore the previous three - 14/11/2007 4:42:07 PM   

Posts: 637
Joined: 19/3/2006
From: Here to Eternity

ORIGINAL: lukeynemo

There's no doubting that the Die Hard movies (with the possible exception of Die Hard 2 which suffered from following the first movie too closely but without the fun) have set the benchmark for tongue-in-cheek action. However, the most obvious difference (and flaw) in this latest incarnation is that the writers seem to have been trying too hard. Influences of TV shows such as 24 are obvious, with a new emphasis and sub-text on technology and the dangers therein. But hang on, this is Die Hard isn't it? We want technology etc from films such as The Matrix but what the audience wants from a Die Hard film is gun fights with wisecracks, and that's less evident in this film. Not to say it isn't exciting: Timoth Olyphant, of Deadwood fame, manages to make his computer geek chilling and believeable as he throws up endless problems for the man McClane. The fight between the latter and a helicopter being one of the best action set pieces for some time. Justin Long provides good value as a hacker reluctantly along for the ride, but he also serves to highlight McClane's (and the film's) slight sense of humour failure. In short, as a stand alone film this is big scale, above average entertainment. But when you consider how much the first Die Hard did with such a simple concept, you get the feeling that this film is trying too hard to be modern and loses some of its identity as a result.

I agree completely, Die Hard is about a high concept taken to extreme levels, the first was the action movie of all time and although the second went off course, Vengeance was nearly as much fun as the original. I'm not saying Die Hard 4 is bad, infact I really enjoyed it but it didn't feel like a Die Hard movie, if this was a completely seperate movie I think it would have been far more popular.

Die Hard 4.0 Rating: Four Stars

< Message edited by jamdodge1 -- 14/11/2007 4:43:25 PM >
Post #: 170
RE: Die Hard: Bore point 0 - 19/11/2007 8:48:15 AM   

Posts: 9116
Joined: 30/9/2005
I can't believe they got away with calling it a Die Hard movie.
The weakest film of the 4, which is saying something considering how crap Die Hard 2 is.


I've got all the Barbie ones!!!

Yeah but you're old. Really old. Old. Old. Old. Old.
Post #: 171
RE: 1, 2, 4, 3, that's the order! - 21/11/2007 8:56:05 PM   

Posts: 1552
Joined: 14/8/2007
From: Brighton, UK
I thought that Die hard 4.0 was very good


"We just wanted to say we're a big fan of your work. When it comes to killing Nazis... I think you show great talent. And I pride myself on having an eye for that kind of talent. Your status as a Nazi killer is... still amateur. We all come here to see if you wanna go pro... '"

Post #: 172
RE: 1, 2, 4, 3, that's the order! - 22/11/2007 7:41:52 PM   


Posts: 330
Joined: 18/4/2006
Loud,silly, forgettable, nowhere near as good as 1or 2 and par for the course for an action movie.In the same bracket as Welcome to the Jungle/Sahara etc.


I do pointless -good

(in reply to Chris66)
Post #: 173
RE: In a word- COOL! - 18/1/2008 2:56:00 PM   

Posts: 10122
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
Silly fun. Preposterous but entertaining.


Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"
Post #: 174
RE: three stars - 30/4/2008 10:18:59 AM   


Posts: 36
Joined: 30/4/2008

ORIGINAL: sofaking

why only three stars when you had nothing negative to say about the film ?

I thought this movie was fun
Post #: 175
RE: three stars - 30/4/2008 10:39:01 AM   

Posts: 677
Joined: 5/12/2007
From: Nibelheim
The film was a pile of horse manur. Hated every second of it. Makes a mockery of the original films. The Die Hard series will forever remain a trilogy and thats that.

(in reply to Dukez)
Post #: 176
RE: three stars - 2/5/2008 5:30:20 PM   
the anomaly

Posts: 6410
Joined: 20/6/2006
I enjoyed this.
Really did not think I would from reviews and trailers. A decent action film. Though I have not seen the rest of the Die Hards properly only casually watching them. So I don't know what it is like compared.

(in reply to jermreen)
Post #: 177
RE: three stars - 1/6/2008 9:03:37 PM   

Posts: 89
Joined: 30/12/2005
From: Stevenage
i have the same feeling towards dh4 as i do with indy 4. nothing like the original set of films that made it possible for a fourth to be made. their both very disappointing and aimed at a bigger crowd of movie goers. both get 3/5 but i think it's my admiration of the proper films before them that is giving them 3 rather than 2.


will you commit to this programme?

(in reply to the anomaly)
Post #: 178
RE: it was alright - 28/12/2008 3:37:27 PM   

Posts: 5201
Joined: 2/10/2005
After watching this again at xmas i think it gets better with each viewing and i think its deserving of 4 stars, but thats my opinion. My dad and brother hadnt seen it, and i recomended us to watch it, and it turns out they loved it. I think watching it right after another Die Hard film helps a lot too. Yes the violence (ie blood) is toned down slightly and the language is less hardcore, but the action is still there and its bloody great too. there wasnt one fallinng-out-of-window, hit-by-car, falling-out of-helicopter, punch or bullet wound i didnt feel.

Best action ive seen in ages. Plus, McClane is still that bad arse wise arse throughout the whole film. As pointed out i would have liked for the language to be a bit more fruity and a bit more blood, but apparently the dvd has a harder cut, so it raises my opinion even more for this film!


"Darth Silas - I love Craig as Bond too. Genius. "- Jackmansgirl 15/7/2008

Last films watched:

The Road - 4/5
Chronicle - 4/5
Twilight Breaking Dawn p1 - 1/5
Warrior - 5/5
Super 8 - 5/5
Paranormal Activity 3 - 3/5
MI 4 - 2/5
Post #: 179
RE: it was alright - 29/12/2008 1:47:43 PM   


Posts: 172
Joined: 29/6/2008
my problems with this film:

a bald john mclane-i would have rather seen him have hair with grey temples

booze and fag free- not even a mention of how and why he quit

shit villains- all the films before this one had good casting for villains. iv'e had farts scarier than these ones.

no fucking swearing- and shit is not a real swear word- the bible says so.

no vest- just a shite green .....thing

annoying sidekick-justin long? more like justin WRONG! give me al powell or sammy jackson any day!

just general shit casting- fbi agents played by ex vulcans.

not saying this film didn't try, it did , it really did. it just failed. i was pissed off to say the least.
die hard, indiana jones, any more of my childhood heroes you wanna fuck up?
ooh i know, ghostbusters...........

(in reply to kumar)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Die hardererer.... Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI