Die Hard 4K UHD (1988)

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And just when I was thinking "my hyperbole levels are kinda low today, I need a top-up", here comes Reverse Jim with enough hyperbole to keep me going for weeks. Thanks!

There’s nothing hyperbolic about that.

[Geoff D]

There never is, Mij. There never is. You're so used to treating things as if they are the light shining from God's arse OR as if they are shit on the devil's boot heel that it's just normal, there's simply nothing left in-between. Do you grade everything like this, e.g. "this cereal is the worst cereal OF ALL TIME"?

[Fendergopher]

Image.jpg

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There never is, Mij. There never is. You're so used to treating things as if they are the light shining from God's arse OR as if they are shit on the devil's boot heel that it's just normal, there's simply nothing left in-between. Do you grade everything like this, e.g. "this cereal is the worst cereal OF ALL TIME"?

You can like DH4 all you want, it’s your opinion, but it’s a horrible movie. To take an A list star and an A list franchise and turn it into this kind of boring mess is an embarrassment on everyone involved.

I’m always surprised when studios give their good franchises to second rate crews. The new Star Wars movies are another very good example. Can’t hire good talent for some reason? Good talent no longer exists?

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

There’s nothing hyperbolic about that.

The movie completely derails in the final act. It goes completely Michael Bay.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by slimdude

I thought Die Hard with a Vengeance was the worst of the franchise. The Simon Says game they were playing throughout the movie was stupid.

You're entitled to think that, but you're wrong.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

That's the ONLY Die Hard sequel that matches up to the original.

Only, it doesnt.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by hoejunter

The ageism is strong in this one

Or just the reality of life.

At some point... They're too old for it.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by levcore

Die Hard 4 has such a poor villain. Olyphant is an ok actor but very badly cast in 4 and the character is just really dull and forgettable. I'm not saying this like Die Hard 5 is much better in this department but the villain actors are far more interesting in 5, despite even weaker characterisation.

TO has no screen presence outside of being a devious looking character in a horror or thriller kind of movie.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by mikesncc1701

It's obviously meant to make it feel like you're running along with them. It was hand held action before The Bourne Identity, just not as frenetic and quickly cut.

The editing was very understandable given what they were going for.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

Only, it doesnt.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong, good sir.

[captainsolo]

Die Hard and Lethal Weapon are the two signature action franchises of the 80’s and each divides fans on individual film strengths and directions. I love both and still wish each one could get a proper sendoff. That being said at least LW did not get saddled with an atrocious modern junk “sequel” in name only. Or a car battery commercial....

The original like LW is one of those lightning in a bottle moments that shouldn’t have happened. Its strengths don’t hit you all at once and the genre mastery only becomes more obvious over time. 2 is a hell of a lot of fun and is really the only sequel in the same gritty universe. For me it is the only one near the original but I’ve become more accustomed to DH3 and still like it. I just think Vengeance is problematic due to its repurposed script, tacked on ending and some other elements that have kept it from ever feeling as good as it could have been. While it doesn’t exactly fit a DH film I LOVE the original ending!
DH4 was a complete surprise all those years later. There was still some gas in the tank and a little bit of sparkle that devolved into a modern action film but at least had some sparks of personality. Yes the PG-13 was ridiculous and constricting but it’s not a bad film...just okay...

Good Day To Die Inside played in the last theater I worked in and so I saw it an ungodly number of times. It’s an insult to any fan and an insult to one’s intelligence and time. That’s what happens when you hire the guy who made Swordfish....
In many ways the film closest to a Die Hard sequel is actually The Last Boy Scout. I miss the grittiness of the first two series films and here it’s present in spades.

But on the other hand if push comes to shove and I had to pick my favorite McTiernan picture it’s unquestionably Hunt for Red October.

[Markgway]

Die Hard is the classic.

2-4 are highly entertaining sequels.

5 is pants.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Die Hard is the classic.

2-4 are highly entertaining sequels.

5 is pants.

Is the correct answer.

[Gacivory]

I guess I’m more shocked by the Olyphant hate in here! Dude is great! Always been great!

I really like 1-3. Like 4, also holds nostalgia. Only Doe Hard movie I’ve seen in theaters and saw with my dad. Hated 5. Now, Jai Courtney is someone I’d say has no screen presence. His performance as Kyle Reese still gives me waking nightmares. Never saw the battery commercial, so don’t have an opinion on that.

[mikesncc1701]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

Die Hard and Lethal Weapon

You people want some real controversy? These are both, hands down....Christmas films.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mikesncc1701

You people want some real controversy? These are both, hands down....Christmas films.

Ah, that old chestnut. I've always regarded Die Hard as a movie set at Christmas whereas Lethal Weapon actually feels like a Christmas film, with Riggs as Santa doling out white-hot rounds of justice from his Beretta to all those who've been naughty and not nice. (That Beretta 92 was everywhere back then, wasn't it?)

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ah, that old chestnut. I've always regarded Die Hard as a movie set at Christmas whereas Lethal Weapon actually feels like a Christmas film, with Riggs as Santa doling out white-hot rounds of justice from his Beretta to all those who've been naughty and not nice. (That Beretta 92 was everywhere back then, wasn't it?)

But Die Hard feels like a Christmas movie to me. The holiday+Being stuck with people you hate and no easy way out.

[Jay H.]

Either movie could take place at any other time of year. They aren't about Christmas; they are set during Christmas. The holiday has no bearing on the storylines at all.

[MuffinMcFluffin]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

Either movie could take place at any other time of year. They aren't about Christmas; they are set during Christmas. The holiday has no bearing on the storylines at all.

“Now I have a machine gun. Gobble. Gobble. Gobble.”

I agree, by the way. In fact, Live Free or Die Hard has more to do with Independence Day than Die Hard 1 or 2 have to do with Christmas.