A Good Day to Die Hard

#8: He did say it. Not that it was satisfying or anything...

I heard "Yippe ki-Yay" but I'm certain "Motherfucker" was obscured. No way it'd pass in a 12A film. Really, that rating should have been the first warning sign given the original is an 18. I'm surprised they went for a 12A, actually, given how most studios aim for that 15 mark to get all the teenagers in.

It'll be in the DVD of course, because that will be a 15.

edited 6th Mar '13 9:51:00 AM by TheBatPencil

Then it's probably a different cut in the U.K. It's rated R here in the U.S.

edited 6th Mar '13 9:51:37 AM by RLNice

Yeah I noticed the Yippie Kay Yay motherfucker just fine. Granted he never said it directly to the villain even though he had numerous perfect opportunities.

Was McClane actually called a cowboy by the villain, though? (I don't recall it, though I may just be forgetting.) Remember that the phrase was originally in response to being called a cowboy by Gruber.

I think he was once when the Dragon met him that one time.

You see thats another problem. He only directly encountered the Dragon one fucking time.

Saw it and then went to go see Hansel and Gretel since the times they were on worked out that way. Hansel and Gretel was more interesting and delivered better violence and tits.

Ha ha, funny co-incidence! I saw this right after Hansel and Gretel. Agreed the latter was good. Agreed this was appalling. I wasn't expecting much better, having seen the reviews, but that doesn't make it any better. And I say this having liked the 4th one.

The next sequel has already been announced. The title is To Live and Die Hard in LA Another Day: Make My Day Die Harder.

Add another other-movie reference or two and you'd get the title for a Seltzer and Friedberg work.

It's time to put the franchise to sleep. It should've never been a franchise in the first place, though I am a big fan of Die Hard With A Vengeance. The premise of the first movie is really something that works better as a standalone film. John Mcclane is no longer "the right guy at the wrong place, at the wrong time" but instead he's now "Bald and bored looking Terminator who vaguely resembles the same character from the first film."

Mcclane is the lynchpin of the series, Die Hard wouldn't have been nearly as memorable and iconic if, say, John Matrix from Commando was the main character. Alan Rickman's performance as Hans didn't hurt either.

Okay, I've been a huge fan of the Die Hard movies for a long time now, especially the first film {Which is by far the best }. I wasn't too fond of the 4th film {The bland villain and the really weak story were my main problems with it}, and I've heard that this movie is actually even worse. But I don't know what makes it so bad, and I'd rather not spend my money on it. So I just want to know: What exactly is terrible about this movie? Is it really worse then the 4th film?

Oh, and don't be afraid to mention any spoilers that might have contributed badly to the film. I probably won't end up seeing this movie if it's that bad anyway.

edited 20th Mar '13 11:43:49 AM by marston

You know what made the first film great? If you do the exact opposite of all that, this is the film you get. And I'm not even kidding.

All the mistakes from Die Hard 4 got turned Up To Eleven here, without any of the acceptable or even just competent elements that it had.

edited 20th Mar '13 1:18:27 PM by TheBatPencil

I saw the movie without having seen any of the other movies and thought it was lame.

I wanted Jack to die so Bruce Willis could say, "You died hard son. I could never be more proud."

You never watched any of the Die Hard films before?

Odd. So much a part of my life that I assumed everyone else had watched them too.

I've only seen the third one. Most of it, anyway.

^ Which wasn't even originally a DH script, likewise the 4th one.

DH3 was originally set up for another Lethal Weapon installment and only later did they work McClane into it, while DH4 was a totally unrelated work called "Fire Sale" that was tweaked to make McClane the protagonist.

And, really, both of them showed their "not a DH movie" chops, 4 moreso than 3.

The original Die Hard is the only good movie in the series (2 skirts around the edge of being good, but doesn't quite make it). It's also one of the best action films out there.

The sequels have pretty much nothing to do with the original, they turn the protag into a superhero, whereas in the original he really isn't. If you've only seen the sequels then :(

I have soft spot for With A Vengeance.

Don't you mean a Hard spot for With a Vengeance?

Oooooh!

Honestly, only the fifth Die Hard has been a miss for me. And that's because too much of it is blue collar posturing by Willis — possibly the most pretentious celebrity on the planet — bland characters, and an even blander city to play in. Part of the fun of Die Hard is navigating an urban jungle. In this one, it was a rote exercise, full of quips and endless warehouses.

I think this Die Hard became more about Bruce's vanity than any of the elements the series is known for. It's his Expendables.

So how's the last Die Hard movie coming along?

... Oh, it's been cancelled by Disney. Well, that's a bummer.

Edited by Redmess on Apr 30th 2020 at 4:27:04 PM

White House Down is a fine Die Hard movie.

I miss Cracked not sucking.

But seriously. If they make another Die Hard, we need to get rid of Willis. I know he is John McClane but he's completely given up on this whole "acting" thing.

Edited by Larkmarn on Apr 30th 2020 at 11:26:50 AM

The next movie will be called "A Rather Inconvenient Day to Die Hard"