Live Free or Die Hard

[bobbledude25]

Anyone else see this movie? I just saw it last night and loved it! i thought it was probably the best of the Die Hard Series. Non-stop action although some if it seemed a little to unbelievable but I guess thats why its a movie. Any thoughts?

[tyguy20204]

I haven't seen it, and I won't, at least not in theaters. I don't plan on giving Fox any of my money after they made the movie PG-13.

 

The first Die Hard is a great movie. Just by looking at the trailers for the new one, I'm skeptical to say the least.

[cweber39]

Quote:

---

I don't plan on giving Fox any of my money after they made the movie PG-13.

---

 

I had a friend say the samething, about how he didn't want to see it because it was rated PG-13. I may end up seeing it, however, it just depends on how it goes because there are a lot of other movies coming out I would like to see first, like HP5 and The Simpsons.

[bobbledude25]

PG-13 does it really matter?

[cweber39]

Does he say his famous line?

[Crewin06]

I loved it.

 

Definitely does the Franchise justice.

 

Yes it is pretty unbelievable, but it's a Die Hard Movie.

 

I went to be entertained and it was 10x better than I expected and I expected it to be good.

[Crewin06]

Quote:

---

Does he say his famous line?

---

 

Yippee Kiayay M'er F'er

[bbrauch2000]

it was barely noticeable that it was PG-13. There was enough swearing, violence and action to keep you distracted from something as petty as that. I thought it was awesome. The scene where he says his line is pretty awesome

[JoeHova]

Quote:

---

HP5

---

 

 

What is this?

[Schlitz001]

Yippee Kiayay M'er F'er

 

I saw the movie and really enjoyed it. Old school Die Hard violence without the aid of computer CGI or futuristic weapons. In this movie his objective is way bigger (basically save the world) than the previous films. He dodges a lot more bullets and gets away with some crazy "a million to one" type of stunts and it all makes for a really enjoyable, get what you were hoping for, action film.

 

The only part of the movie that made me cringe is when he said "the line".

[MarquesJohnson2000]

I suspect HP5 is Harry Potter 5

[UeckerAddict]

Did they make McClane into the terminator? I always liked the original "Die Hard" because he seemed mortal, but they seem to have progressed into this "he's a cyborg who will save the world" motiff.

[RobertR]

Quote:

---

Did they make McClane into the terminator? I always liked the original "Die Hard" because he seemed mortal, but they seem to have progressed into this "he's a cyborg who will save the world" motiff.

---

 

Pretty much. Certainly, he refers to himself as an out and out hero instead of a blue collar guy in over his head out of circumstances. Still, he's come a long way from being worried about running over glass in his bare feet to taking out helicopters and ridiculously taking out a jetfighter.

 

Big picture this movie is a mess. John McClane helicopter pilot may beat out the offscreen death of the Kracken for laziest writing of the summer. But, it makes up for it through a fast pace and simple plot mechanics, McClane whittles down henchmen one by one until he gets to the boss. It may be formula, but its a formula that works. And there are some good, old school action sequences in the movie on a human scale. Lots of real stunts and explosions and pushing an R rating for violence. Good final confrontation too.

 

Like all the big blockbusters this summer, it's certainly a flawed movie. But, at least it's fast paced and not too bloated in its many flaws. It's o.k. as a generic action thriller but it has none of the qualities that made the original movie a classic.

 

Robert

[Crewin06]

No Offense Robert but It's a Movie.

 

The fact that John McClaine had a couple lessons in a hellicoptor and tried to fly one isn't even close to the most unrealistic thing that takes place and inconsequential when you think about it. Hell put in that situation I would probably try the same thing.

 

I just don't really get how it is lazy writing. It encompases about 30 seconds of the movie and he gets from point A to Point B. I mean they could have just as easily had the place they were going down the block and it would have accomplished the same overall means. I don't pretend to know anything about movies nor am I a movie buff but it seems you are nitpicking just to nitpick.

 

Same thing with the end quote

 

Quote:

---

Like all the big blockbusters this summer, it's certainly a flawed movie. But, at least it's fast paced and not too bloated in its many flaws. It's o.k. as a generic action thriller but it has none of the qualities that made the original movie a classic.

---

 

Again it seems to nitpick just to nitpick. I mean you point out he walked on glass in the first one but if I remember correctly (it has been quite a while since I've seen the first one) he also throws a bad guy what seems like 30 stories out of a building and the guy lands perfectly on a squad car.

 

He also blows up what seems like 3 lower stories of a building but none of the hostages get hurt, there is no structural damage (i.e. the building does not collapse) and none of the thousands of people around the building get hurt.

 

I also thought he blew up a helicopter in the first one also. I may be wrong.

 

I don't know it seems to me that this one has alot of the same qualities that made the first one a classic. A down on his luck cop gets thrown into a situation and he takes over.

 

I just notice that some people seem to not like movies unless they are Indie pictures or at least 10 years old. Yet they see everyone anyway. Thats just my opinion.

 

Overall, I think it is a very good movie especially if you like the Die Hard Series and definitely worth the money to see it in the theatres.

[DHonks]

I thought it was unique. I've never seen many of those scenes before. In many action movies, it's the same old thing. So from that perspective, I thought it was unique. Only time will tell how much I like it. The first three hold their value even after seeing them 100 times. It's to the point where if I'm bored, I can turn on the TV, and if one of about 10 movies is on, I'll flip to it no matter how many times I've seen it. 3 of those ten are the first Die Hards

[And That]

I thought it was entertaining if you were willing to let go completely of reality and be entertained by it. If you thought about the movie at all during or after, it was most definitely a mess.

 

Case in point, LFoDH had one of the most obnoxiously named "government agencies" I've ever seen coughed up onto the screen: The National Department of Information. That's right, kids, The National Department of Information. When I saw that go on the screen, I nearly peed myself. And then I thought, "Well, at least they didn't call it The National Department of Stuff."

[RobertR]

Sure, it's just a movie. And, fwiw, I don't think it's really any worse than the other Die Hard sequels. But, I think the plot barely holds together and some of the action scenes, while generally well done, get really implausible at times.

 

The first movie was at a relatively realistic level. Granted, there were some awfully big explosions, but for the most part they kept it at a plausible level. (Dropping a body on a car is only unlikely, not impossible. And fine for dramatic effect, because even if he missed it would have the same effect. Gruber took out the helicopter when he blew up the roof.) I'm not saying that the original is a masterpiece of neo-realism, but it's a long way from throwing yourself out of speeding cop cars and getting up, blowing up helicopters with a car jump, and surfing off of fighter jets. FWIW, the bad guys seem to get the benefit of the doubt too as one jumps out of a helicopter and walks away and another gets hit with an SUV, crashes through several walls, and keeps on fighting. I do like that the finale kept things at a very human level though. I wish more of the film was like that.

 

And, I certainly think that John McClane, helicopter pilot, was a sign that they had written themselves into a corner and needed to get him back to the coast in a hurry before the bad guy could complete his scheme. I'll grant that it was merely implausible, not impossible, but it runs counter to his depiction as a blue collar guy. It certainly strikes me as a very arbitrary decision by the writers.

 

FWIW, I did have a better time than I did during POTC3. A fast paced, 2 hour movie, with plenty of action, and a focussed (if implausible) storyline certainly has something to recommend it.

 

Robert

[DuWayne Steurer]

I'd have to say the "implaus-o-meter" would go right off the scale as soon as Mr. McLane gets involved for the 4th time in his life in a terrorist plot to blow up a building/steal money/take over the world.

 

In my opinion, if you're going to worry about reality in a Die Hard movie, that reality takes a huge bite simply by the fact that it's staggeringly improbable to be involved in this many terrorist activities by sheer chance (except 3, where he's a specific target).

[RobertR]

True, but there's not a movie without that conceit in the first place. You know what you're getting into when it says Die Hard on the marquee. My complaint is more along the lines that this isn't John McClane, blue collar cop anymore but it's now more John McClane, borderline superhero. Certainly, McClane seems to have acquired Wolverine's healing abilities over the years.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that what I said got taken as especially harsh criticism. Heck, I've been accussed elsewhere of being too praiseful of the same movie.

 

Robert

[DuWayne Steurer]

I didn't mean to come off as harsh Robert, I just like to talk movies, and if we all agreed, it wouldn't be a whole lot of fun now, would it? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

I get what you're saying, (granted I have not seen this one yet), and just from the commercials, some of the situations look a little bit "out there", I guess I just look at it, like you say, with a Die Hard movie, you know what you're getting into.

[tyguy20204]

No, I totally agree with you Robert, I just haven't said anything.

 

The first Die Hard is absolutely unrealistic (as are most movies - it's the nature of the format), but within its own universe its comes across as something that could happen.

 

I don't go to movies to see amazing stunts and explosions. Now, if they're in the movie, fine, but they better make sense in the context of the narrative. I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to think about how an ex-cop flying a helicopter would fit into the universe that made the first Die Hard successful.

[bobbledude25]

qutie frankly guys...I lost some interest when the kung fu Asian woman died

[bigredrobbo]

You could tell there was a much more sweary and violent movie in there originally. Some of the dialog we heard was very definitely NOT what was coming out of their mouths!

[sheetswannabe]

Go see it, Def. top 10 movies Ive ever seen, but yet Die Hard is in my top 10 too. I loved it and thought it was better than all 3, which says a lot because it was my fav trilogy. GO SEE IT!

[deeswan]

Saw it and really liked it. Much better than the piece of trash that #3 was, IMO. Given that it was probably John McClane's last hurrah, I thought it was a great end to the series.