AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Die Hard 5: One death too many
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Die Hard 5: One death too many - Page 6

post #151 of 192
2/21/13 at 5:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

The guy is a chameleon....cool.gif

Seriously. He's amazing in almost every movie you see him in.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #152 of 192
2/21/13 at 6:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

The guy is a chameleon....cool.gif
My all time fav Gary Oldman character is that wanna be black pimp he played in True Romance, and of course the crooked cop in Leon. You gotta envy the guy for getting a fat pay check for couple min of screen time then go home while the main actors have to keep working. What a blessed life hah..he must have been a great human being in the previous life time.
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 192
2/21/13 at 8:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Seriously. He's amazing in almost every movie you see him in.

*cough* Lost In Space *cough* biggrin.gif

Actually, he pretty much saved it from being dismal.
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 192
2/22/13 at 5:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

The guy is a chameleon....cool.gif
The thing that stands out about the movies Gary appears in is that he has so many disguises. I can’t think of a current actor who has undergone so many different looks for his various roles.


Gary Oldman movie images.
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 192
2/23/13 at 12:38pm
Back on topic:

The movie is pretty lame. Dumb plot, awful dialogue, incomprehensible shaky-cam action and ugly teal photography. Sure is a good thing the bad guys had that magic radiation-eliminating spray that made Chernobyl safe for everybody. If I’m not mistaken, I think that was Febreze. Extra Strength formula, right?

The worst part is the way that John McClane is made to be a spectator in his own movie. He’s just along for the ride. His presence serves no purpose to the story. He just gets in the way. Everything would have worked out better without him there. That’s disgraceful.

I also found it annoying the way that McClane was turned into a stereotypical Ugly American obnoxious tourist, yelling at the locals for speaking their native language in their own country and just generally behaving like an ass the whole time.

They couldn't even be bothered to shoot this one in scope like all the others. The movie's just lazy on every level.
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 192
2/23/13 at 1:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Back on topic:

The movie is pretty lame. Dumb plot, awful dialogue, incomprehensible shaky-cam action and ugly teal photography. Sure is a good thing the bad guys had that magic radiation-eliminating spray that made Chernobyl safe for everybody. If I’m not mistaken, I think that was Febreze. Extra Strength formula, right?

LOL! biggrin.gif

I agree with everything you said... I still have hopes for the next one... They can't end this franchise like this!
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 192
2/23/13 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Back on topic:
After your review, I think we should stay off topic. wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 192
2/23/13 at 6:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Back on topic:

The movie is pretty lame. Dumb plot, awful dialogue, incomprehensible shaky-cam action and ugly teal photography. Sure is a good thing the bad guys had that magic radiation-eliminating spray that made Chernobyl safe for everybody. If I’m not mistaken, I think that was Febreze. Extra Strength formula, right?

The worst part is the way that John McClane is made to be a spectator in his own movie. He’s just along for the ride. His presence serves no purpose to the story. He just gets in the way. Everything would have worked out better without him there. That’s disgraceful.

I also found it annoying the way that McClane was turned into a stereotypical Ugly American obnoxious tourist, yelling at the locals for speaking their native language in their own country and just generally behaving like an ass the whole time.

They couldn't even be bothered to shoot this one in scope like all the others. The movie's just lazy on every level.

First, what is off topic on this Forum?smile.gif

On to the substance of your post, though. As noted in an earlier post, I liked Die Hard 5 better than you did, albeit only marginally. I agree with you, though, that in this film the usually multifaceted McClane character, had less depth than Dick Tracy.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 192
2/23/13 at 11:37pm
Sometimes I wish Josh would post about movies he LIKES.....wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 192
2/24/13 at 12:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Sometimes I wish Josh would post about movies he LIKES.....wink.gif

Even Josh would be bored with talking about Robin Hood 1938 and Alien all the time. wink.gif

Besides its not his fault most Hollywood movies sucks. $200 million projects with 50 buck screenplays.
Reply
Reply
post #161 of 192
2/24/13 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Sometimes I wish Josh would post about movies he LIKES.....wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Even Josh would be bored with talking about Robin Hood 1938 and Alien all the time. wink.gif

Besides its not his fault most Hollywood movies sucks. $200 million projects with 50 buck screenplays.

Agreed. I think one of the reasons so many of Josh's posts about movies are negative is that there are so many movies that deserve it. Besides, I think critics with a contrarian point of view are a useful counterbalance to the critics who say, albeit unconvincingly, that they love everything.
Reply
Reply
post #162 of 192
2/24/13 at 8:12am
So this one is not scope like the others?
Reply
Reply
post #163 of 192
2/24/13 at 9:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post


Agreed. I think one of the reasons so many of Josh's posts about movies are negative is that there are so many movies that deserve it. Besides, I think critics with a contrarian point of view are a useful counterbalance to the critics who say, albeit unconvincingly, that they love everything.
I post both positive and negative.
Both kinds of criticism is valid, and entirely SUBJECTIVE.wink.gif
For that reason, I tend to post more + than -
My opinions are just as valid as anyone else and worth 2 cents as well.
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 192
2/25/13 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

So this one is not scope like the others?

No, it's 1.85:1.
Reply
Reply
post #165 of 192
2/25/13 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Even Josh would be bored with talking about Robin Hood 1938 and Alien all the time. wink.gif

Besides its not his fault most Hollywood movies sucks. $200 million projects with 50 buck screenplays.

I think you mean Dune.... wink.gif


Wow, you guys are being waaaay too kind to A Good Day to Die Hard. This was absolultely incoherent and inept.

The only thing that remotely makes sense is that you can survive a few hours in Chernobyl...
Reply
Reply
post #166 of 192
2/25/13 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Clark View Post


The only thing that remotely makes sense is that you can survive a few hours in Chernobyl...
Hopefully, your vehicle doesn't get vandalized:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1991245/?ref_=sr_1
Reply
Reply
post #167 of 192
2/26/13 at 3:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Hopefully, your vehicle doesn't get vandalized:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1991245/?ref_=sr_1

hehehe... I haven't seen that one, is it good?


The main problem in DH5 and Josh said it perfectly is that John McClane in this film simply gets in the way. Haven't the writers heard about that particular character beforehand? They even managed to make him annoying at times, they should be ashamed! This film could have been called The Die Hard Legacy, without Bruce Willis...

I have high hopes for the next one because like I said before, they just can't end it like this, so poorly. McClane deserves much, much better before retiring.
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 192
2/26/13 at 9:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

hehehe... I haven't seen that one, is it good?
I thought so....it's certainly worth a rental.smile.gif

Quote:
The main problem in DH5 and Josh said it perfectly is that John McClane in this film simply gets in the way. Haven't the writers heard about that particular character beforehand? They even managed to make him annoying at times, they should be ashamed! This film could have been called The Die Hard Legacy, without Bruce Willis...

I have high hopes for the next one because like I said before, they just can't end it like this, so poorly. McClane deserves much, much better before retiring.
Maybe it was an attempt to grease BW's eventual exit from the franchise by focusing attention away from him?
Reply
Reply
post #169 of 192
2/26/13 at 10:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

The main problem in DH5 and Josh said it perfectly is that John McClane in this film simply gets in the way. Haven't the writers heard about that particular character beforehand? They even managed to make him annoying at times, they should be ashamed!

What's especially strange and ironic is that this is so far the only Die Hard movie specifically written to be a Die Hard movie. All of the others started life as unrelated projects that were altered to fit the franchise. Even the first movie was originally planned as a sequel to a Frank Sinatra film called The Detective. Die Hard 2 was adapted from a pulp novel about an airport being hijacked. Die Hard 3 combined unused scripts for a Lethal Weapon sequel and a thriller called "Simon Says." Die Hard 4 started as a cyber terrorism thriller called "ww3.com."

Yet this one is the first time someone started fresh by saying, "Let's write a Die Hard sequel with John McClane." And this is what we get.
Reply
Reply
post #170 of 192
2/26/13 at 11:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post


Yet this one is the first time someone started fresh by saying, "Let's write a Die Hard sequel with John McClane." And this is what we get.

Maybe that's the problem. All other works were created to stand on their own, and in this they got careless. Like we only need explosion's, Bruce Willis, Die Hard title and alot of gun fire.

Havnt seen the movie yet, but judging from peoples reaction, this seem to be what happened. I wasn't so fond of DH4.0 either so I didn't have much hope for this one.
Reply
Reply
post #171 of 192
2/27/13 at 9:43pm
The strength of the series allowed the filmmakers to be extremely lazy with this one. They must have just said "Oh hell, who are we kidding? People will watch any old crap with the Die Hard name branded on it."

That's the way of the world today: Quarter-ass things whenever you can. The next entry will probably be laced with even more horse meat with the usual horse **** marketing behind it.
Reply
Reply
post #172 of 192
2/28/13 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSmith83 View Post

The strength of the series allowed the filmmakers to be extremely lazy with this one. They must have just said "Oh hell, who are we kidding? People will watch any old crap with the Die Hard name branded on it."

Possibly true - and if this was their plan it worked.
Quote:
The fifth installment in the Die Hard franchise added $35.3 million from 66 markets. It debuted in first place in France and Brazil with $5.5 million and $2.6 million, respectively, and also had a solid $1.4 million start in India. Take out those grosses and that leaves just $25.8 million from holdover markets, which is a drop of more than 50 percent from last weekend. Still, the movie has now earned $132 million total, and with Australia and China yet to open there's a good chance it ultimately matches its predecessor's $250 million foreign gross.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3637&p=.htm
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 192
2/28/13 at 9:37am
It will make money. It's pretty much in the black as of this coming weekend. But it will be the lowest earning of the franchise (especially when you consider inflation), selling something less than half the tickets of the first two films.

I was out of the country when it opened and upon returning decided it would be the first DIE HARD film I do not pay to see in a theater. Just too many people I trust hating on it.

They should have purchased the rights to the Hong Kong film HARD BOILED and remade it. It would have been a welcome return to the original concept.
Reply
Reply
post #174 of 192
2/28/13 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

It will make money. It's pretty much in the black as of this coming weekend. But it will be the lowest earning of the franchise (especially when you consider inflation), selling something less than half the tickets of the first two films.

Hopefully that will tell them something for Die Hard 6...
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 192
2/28/13 at 10:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Hopefully that will tell them something for Die Hard 6...

You don't think they already calculated that this will not be a hit like the first movies, but more like milking the cow before its gets to old.
Reply
Reply
post #176 of 192
2/28/13 at 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

You don't think they already calculated that this will not be a hit like the first movies, but more like milking the cow before its gets to old.

...it is already too old. But if they do the same kind of calculation twice the next one will bomb so they better get it right next time! I think there's still room to end this franchise on a high note.
Reply
Reply
post #177 of 192
2/28/13 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I think there's still room to end this franchise on a high note.

Can somebody here solve McTiernans legal issues, that would be a good start.
Reply
Reply
post #178 of 192
2/28/13 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Can somebody here solve McTiernans legal issues, that would be a good start.
LOL, only McTiernan can do that.wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #179 of 192
2/28/13 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

I was out of the country when it opened and upon returning decided it would be the first DIE HARD film I do not pay to see in a theater. Just too many people I trust hating on it.

You made a good choice. I did see it in the theater and didn't feel cheated only because the film is only about 90 minutes long and my ticket cost only $4.25.
Reply
Reply
post #180 of 192
2/28/13 at 10:05pm
Didn't mind if for free. Got free tickets from purchasing the blu ray (diehard)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Die Hard 5: One death too many