What THE FUCK, guys.
I trust your judgment, and you usually do me right.
But this?!
This was the worst edited movie I have ever seen.
Painful overdubs (guys lips stopped moving 5 seconds ago and yest he still talks).
What the fuck was up with the beginning scene, where John talks with his daughter?! There was a cut ever second! Couldn't they afford an extra camera?
Even stupid shit like McClain busting a driver seat windshield, and it being fine 10 seconds ago!
Sure, I can turn off my brain and enjoy the action, but this was just ridiculous.
...the evil chick was hot though. And the Mac-Boy wasn't too annoying.
Seriously though -- I can't even begin to express my joy at seeing a movie that was meant to be a movie. Not an adaptation of something. Not a spectacle -- no, something with characters and a plot that tells a motherfucking story. Something people have lately forgot: action scenes are made infinitely more intense when they're relevant to the plot, and you can tell what the fuck is going on.
Honestly, I think LOTR/Star Wars I/II/II have ruined a decade of mainstream cinema. At least. Frankly I see it in almost every big-budget movie these days: they try to do too much.
Having a Star Wars marathon really illuminates this. Everything in the first three is so disconnected and sprawling -- it's not telling a story about an endearing group of heroes. Instead, it's more like a history of events. Which just seems way less compelling.
I don't know if I'm expressing this well -- it's hard to articulate. And honestly it's a little difficult to put my finger on what exactly is so much better about movies like Die Hard or the original Star Wars trilogy. But it's most definitely a product of the fact that the movie follows the main characters.
In a way, New Star Wars seems like the events are the true characters -- and the people are being drawn to them, like replacable instruments of those events. In the first trilogy, you more get the feeling that the characters are causing the events. The story just seems so much more driven.
Maybe that's what I like about Die Hard 4, too. John McClane, and the Gabriel guy -- they're people who are making shit happen. It's their personal actions and their interactions which drive the plot, instead of this bullshit that's bigger than all the characters put together.
I can understand why everyone is going so apeshit for this movie, I never expected it to be any good. Also, considering the track record of Len Wiseman (fuck you, Underworld) I'm suprised the film looked as good as it did.
But seriously? This isn't Die Hard. This isn't even fucking close to Die Hard. This is a competent, somewhat enjoyable action movie staring Bruce Willis. But that's not John McClane.
We've traded in a flawed, desperate blue collar hero for a god damn superman. I'm not going to sit here and say its a bad movie, because its not. But it sure as shit isn't a Die Hard film. Hell as much as 'with a vengeance' was a tonal shift for the series it at least still got the characters right.
It's great you guys are enjoying it, but I feel robbed of a proper sequel. I think I would've enjoyed it a hell of a lot more if I wasn't, you know...expecting Die Hard. Silly me.
As much as I love Die Hard 1 and 3, the series has been anything but consistent in tone or execution, so I'm not sure why people are expecting "a real Die Hard" movie, because I don't even know what the fuck that is.
Man I swear some people just can't watch a film and enjoy it, "its not a real die hard" what the fuck does that mean? Christ the movie is about how he doesn't die, and god damn it HE DIDN'T DIE! He wasn't a superman anymore then previous films (in the original he uses a fire hose as a rope and jumps before an explosion kills him on a roof, previous to that he took a bullet in the shoulder blade and still continues to give a beat down to a terrorist and previous to that he sliced the fuck out of his feet yet keeps walking).
I think the general reaction is people enjoy this movie because it's got a lot of things lacking from modern action movies. Direction was solid not a lot of jump cuts, characters were fleshed out and didn't always follow stereotypes, the movie was a ride from start to finish with few slow spots, it had some funny parts mixed into the whole film and some connections to the previous die hard (music, the agent johnson line, officer mcclane etc).
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Man I swear some people just can't watch a film and enjoy it, "its not a real die hard" what the fuck does that mean? Christ the movie is about how he doesn't die, and god damn it HE DIDN'T DIE! He wasn't a superman anymore then previous films (in the original he uses a fire hose as a rope and jumps before an explosion kills him on a roof, previous to that he took a bullet in the shoulder blade and still continues to give a beat down to a terrorist and previous to that he sliced the fuck out of his feet yet keeps walking).
I think the general reaction is people enjoy this movie because it's got a lot of things lacking from modern action movies. Direction was solid not a lot of jump cuts, characters were fleshed out and didn't always follow stereotypes, the movie was a ride from start to finish with few slow spots, it had some funny parts mixed into the whole film and some connections to the previous die hard (music, the agent johnson line, officer mcclane etc).
Takes a bullet in the shoulder and whimpers like a wounded animal as a result. Jumps off a building with a fire hose and fears for his fucking life on the way down, barely making it out of that. His entire character is based around a blue collar worker everyman fighting corporate yuppie dickheads. How many times in 4.0 does he take a brutal fall and just runs the fuck on as though nothing happened?
The difference between these two movies is so blindingly obvious I don't see how anyone who was around to appreciate what the first Die Hard did for the genre can seriously argue this is a successful sequel. It's a decent stupid action movie. It's not Die Hard. That doesn't make it a bad movie, it just doesn't live up to the name.
Honestly the only person in the movie who seemed to 'get' Die Hard was the actress playing his daughter. She was closer to a real McClane (har) then anything Willis was doing. That said, Justin Long was suprisingly good. But fucking jet surfing, get out of my Die Hard, you belong in a god damn Commando movie (and I love me some commando, just sayin').
Honestly the only person in the movie who seemed to 'get' Die Hard was the actress playing his daughter. She was closer to a real McClane (har) then anything Willis was doing. That said, Justin Long was suprisingly good. But fucking jet surfing, get out of my Die Hard, you belong in a god damn Commando movie (and I love me some commando, just sayin').
What the fuck, he actually surfed on a dump truck in the third one. He just happened to fall on a jet in this one, while I to thought that was a little over the top as well, it wasn't much worse than the dump truck or the fall they took on to the boat in Vengeance, that was 20 or 30 feet and they walked away just fine.
As much as I love Die Hard 1 and 3, the series has been anything but consistent in tone or execution, so I'm not sure why people are expecting "a real Die Hard" movie, because I don't even know what the fuck that is.
The only "real" Die Hard movie in my opinion is 1. The other 3 are pretty much just other action movies to me.
Honestly the only person in the movie who seemed to 'get' Die Hard was the actress playing his daughter. She was closer to a real McClane (har) then anything Willis was doing. That said, Justin Long was suprisingly good. But fucking jet surfing, get out of my Die Hard, you belong in a god damn Commando movie (and I love me some commando, just sayin').
What the fuck, he actually surfed on a dump truck in the third one. He just happened to fall on a jet in this one, while I to thought that was a little over the top as well, it wasn't much worse than the dump truck or the fall they took on to the boat in Vengeance, that was 20 or 30 feet and they walked away just fine.
That whole "he rode a jet" thing is totally blown out of proportion to, considering
it was falling slow-mo out of the sky.
My personal favorite part was
the tunnel scene with all the car crashes. You know they'd make it out, but...
It was just really intense. I was clawing into my seat during that part. It looked great.
TheBlackWind on
PAD ID - 328,762,218
0
SirUltimosDon't talk, Rusty. Just paint.Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
I loved the movie. It was just pure action, and that's all I expected.
Man I swear some people just can't watch a film and enjoy it, "its not a real die hard" what the fuck does that mean? Christ the movie is about how he doesn't die, and god damn it HE DIDN'T DIE! He wasn't a superman anymore then previous films (in the original he uses a fire hose as a rope and jumps before an explosion kills him on a roof, previous to that he took a bullet in the shoulder blade and still continues to give a beat down to a terrorist and previous to that he sliced the fuck out of his feet yet keeps walking).
I think the general reaction is people enjoy this movie because it's got a lot of things lacking from modern action movies. Direction was solid not a lot of jump cuts, characters were fleshed out and didn't always follow stereotypes, the movie was a ride from start to finish with few slow spots, it had some funny parts mixed into the whole film and some connections to the previous die hard (music, the agent johnson line, officer mcclane etc).
Takes a bullet in the shoulder and whimpers like a wounded animal as a result. Jumps off a building with a fire hose and fears for his fucking life on the way down, barely making it out of that. His entire character is based around a blue collar worker everyman fighting corporate yuppie dickheads. How many times in 4.0 does he take a brutal fall and just runs the fuck on as though nothing happened?
The difference between these two movies is so blindingly obvious I don't see how anyone who was around to appreciate what the first Die Hard did for the genre can seriously argue this is a successful sequel. It's a decent stupid action movie. It's not Die Hard. That doesn't make it a bad movie, it just doesn't live up to the name.
Honestly the only person in the movie who seemed to 'get' Die Hard was the actress playing his daughter. She was closer to a real McClane (har) then anything Willis was doing. That said, Justin Long was suprisingly good. But fucking jet surfing, get out of my Die Hard, you belong in a god damn Commando movie (and I love me some commando, just sayin').
ABLOO BLOO BLOO
The movie was pure awesome. It's an undiluted action movie and doesn't make any apologies for that. And in some spots, god, the camera work was brilliant.
In the beginning, with the shot that starts out behind the cop car and moves around, without a cut, to looking at it from the front? Soooo smooth.
I just watched the first 3 movies recently for the first time, in succession. I saw DH4 Friday as well.
Am I the only one who really liked Die Hard 2?
The terrorists actually succeeding in crashing the plane was very shocking to me, and very awesome. This movie had balls. The action scenes were great, especially the grenades in the helicopter/ejection, and the icesickle in the eye.
but besides all that:
The ending was perfect. He blew up a plane of terrorists using his fucking lighter. So, so, so satisfying. Also, it the best use of his catchphrase in all the movies (1 shouldn't really count). Plus him laughing his ass off like a maniac on the ground afterwards made it even better.
So to me the movies blend together since its been years since i have seen either. which one had Sam L in it and which one was the one where they tried to drill under a gold depository. or is that the same one?
ok then whats the second one? is there a boat involved with any of them?
urbman on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
Also the third one.
You have actually seen all three, right? :P
Anyway; 1 is in a large corporate headquarters, 2 is the airport one and 3 is when the bad guy burrows underground, steals stuff and hides it on the boat.
Posts
I trust your judgment, and you usually do me right.
But this?!
This was the worst edited movie I have ever seen.
Painful overdubs (guys lips stopped moving 5 seconds ago and yest he still talks).
What the fuck was up with the beginning scene, where John talks with his daughter?! There was a cut ever second! Couldn't they afford an extra camera?
Even stupid shit like McClain busting a driver seat windshield, and it being fine 10 seconds ago!
Sure, I can turn off my brain and enjoy the action, but this was just ridiculous.
...the evil chick was hot though. And the Mac-Boy wasn't too annoying.
"Kill all of them and get my daughter back."
Also, this movie REQUIRED a theater with a good sound system. Man, I haven't heard that good of sound in a movie for a long time.
I'm actually crying a little bit as I write this.
While masturbating.
Seriously though -- I can't even begin to express my joy at seeing a movie that was meant to be a movie. Not an adaptation of something. Not a spectacle -- no, something with characters and a plot that tells a motherfucking story. Something people have lately forgot: action scenes are made infinitely more intense when they're relevant to the plot, and you can tell what the fuck is going on.
Honestly, I think LOTR/Star Wars I/II/II have ruined a decade of mainstream cinema. At least. Frankly I see it in almost every big-budget movie these days: they try to do too much.
Having a Star Wars marathon really illuminates this. Everything in the first three is so disconnected and sprawling -- it's not telling a story about an endearing group of heroes. Instead, it's more like a history of events. Which just seems way less compelling.
I don't know if I'm expressing this well -- it's hard to articulate. And honestly it's a little difficult to put my finger on what exactly is so much better about movies like Die Hard or the original Star Wars trilogy. But it's most definitely a product of the fact that the movie follows the main characters.
In a way, New Star Wars seems like the events are the true characters -- and the people are being drawn to them, like replacable instruments of those events. In the first trilogy, you more get the feeling that the characters are causing the events. The story just seems so much more driven.
Maybe that's what I like about Die Hard 4, too. John McClane, and the Gabriel guy -- they're people who are making shit happen. It's their personal actions and their interactions which drive the plot, instead of this bullshit that's bigger than all the characters put together.
Also, this is why no one likes Marxism.
But seriously? This isn't Die Hard. This isn't even fucking close to Die Hard. This is a competent, somewhat enjoyable action movie staring Bruce Willis. But that's not John McClane.
We've traded in a flawed, desperate blue collar hero for a god damn superman. I'm not going to sit here and say its a bad movie, because its not. But it sure as shit isn't a Die Hard film. Hell as much as 'with a vengeance' was a tonal shift for the series it at least still got the characters right.
It's great you guys are enjoying it, but I feel robbed of a proper sequel. I think I would've enjoyed it a hell of a lot more if I wasn't, you know...expecting Die Hard. Silly me.
I think the general reaction is people enjoy this movie because it's got a lot of things lacking from modern action movies. Direction was solid not a lot of jump cuts, characters were fleshed out and didn't always follow stereotypes, the movie was a ride from start to finish with few slow spots, it had some funny parts mixed into the whole film and some connections to the previous die hard (music, the agent johnson line, officer mcclane etc).
pleasepaypreacher.net
Takes a bullet in the shoulder and whimpers like a wounded animal as a result. Jumps off a building with a fire hose and fears for his fucking life on the way down, barely making it out of that. His entire character is based around a blue collar worker everyman fighting corporate yuppie dickheads. How many times in 4.0 does he take a brutal fall and just runs the fuck on as though nothing happened?
The difference between these two movies is so blindingly obvious I don't see how anyone who was around to appreciate what the first Die Hard did for the genre can seriously argue this is a successful sequel. It's a decent stupid action movie. It's not Die Hard. That doesn't make it a bad movie, it just doesn't live up to the name.
Honestly the only person in the movie who seemed to 'get' Die Hard was the actress playing his daughter. She was closer to a real McClane (har) then anything Willis was doing. That said, Justin Long was suprisingly good. But fucking jet surfing, get out of my Die Hard, you belong in a god damn Commando movie (and I love me some commando, just sayin').
Have I been enjoying and watching the previous 3 DH movies incorrectly!?
That's why I enjoyed the hell out of With a Vengeance. Also, Sam Jackson and Jeremy Irons.
What the fuck, he actually surfed on a dump truck in the third one. He just happened to fall on a jet in this one, while I to thought that was a little over the top as well, it wasn't much worse than the dump truck or the fall they took on to the boat in Vengeance, that was 20 or 30 feet and they walked away just fine.
The only "real" Die Hard movie in my opinion is 1. The other 3 are pretty much just other action movies to me.
That whole "he rode a jet" thing is totally blown out of proportion to, considering
My personal favorite part was
It was just really intense. I was clawing into my seat during that part. It looked great.
This one looks decent, but I think I'll wait a bit to see this until Transformers comes out, and watch them on the same day. 8-)
Pretty awesome. The only parts that made me cringe a little were the "hacking" parts.
Hah
The Core?
Honestly the cellphone bit rocked.
true but the hacking was close to real life, plus he had control of the internet. CONTROL!!!!
Sadly I had a very similar thought.
Funniest unintentional bit from the movie? The concept of downloading the entire Financial Records of the US onto a "portable hardrive".
::chuckle::
ABLOO BLOO BLOO
The movie was pure awesome. It's an undiluted action movie and doesn't make any apologies for that. And in some spots, god, the camera work was brilliant.
Did you see the total download size?
500 TB
I know I am.
Steam ID: Good Life
Am I the only one who really liked Die Hard 2?
but besides all that:
For me the movies go 1>2>4>3
XBL: Slimebucato
You have actually seen all three, right? :P
Anyway; 1 is in a large corporate headquarters, 2 is the airport one and 3 is when the bad guy burrows underground, steals stuff and hides it on the boat.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Great movie.